[Bug 642208] Review Request: mingw32-win-iconv - iconv implementation using Win32 API
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 28 14:16:29 UTC 2010
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642208
amorilia at users.sourceforge.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |amorilia at users.sourceforge.
| |net
--- Comment #1 from amorilia at users.sourceforge.net 2010-12-28 09:16:28 EST ---
Beware, this is my very first package review. Feedback on the review by a more
experienced packager is welcome, particularly if I missed any crucial steps.
[+] OK
[!] Needs to be looked into
[/] Not applicable
[*] Overridden by MinGW guidelines
Rpmlint
-------
$ rpmlint mingw32-win-iconv.spec
mingw32-win-iconv.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
mingw32-win-iconv.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Harmless warning, URL works:
$ wget http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2
--2010-12-28 11:15:59--
http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/files/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2
Resolving win-iconv.googlecode.com... 209.85.229.82
Connecting to win-iconv.googlecode.com|209.85.229.82|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 17338 (17K) [application/x-bzip2]
Saving to: “win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2”
100%[======================================>] 17,338 --.-K/s in 0.1s
2010-12-28 11:16:00 (165 KB/s) - “win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2” saved [17338/17338]
$ rpm -i mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
$ md5sum win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2
22ee1bbaae404fe34dca835f1c669a1e win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2
$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2
22ee1bbaae404fe34dca835f1c669a1e
/home/amorilia/rpmbuild/SOURCES/win-iconv-0.0.1.tar.bz2
$ diff mingw32-win-iconv.spec ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-win-iconv.spec -s
Files mingw32-win-iconv.spec and
/home/amorilia/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-win-iconv.spec are identical
$ rpmbuild -ba mingw32-win-iconv.spec
...
Build succeeds.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings
$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv-static-0.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
mingw32-win-iconv-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libiconv.a
mingw32-win-iconv-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Looks fine, follows MinGW guidelines.
Dependencies
------------
$ su -c 'yum install mingw32-iconv*'
$ rpm -qa | grep mingw32-iconv
mingw32-iconv-static-1.12-12.fc12.noarch
mingw32-iconv-debuginfo-1.12-12.fc12.noarch
mingw32-iconv-1.12-12.fc12.noarch
$ su -c 'rpm -Uv /home/amorilia/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-win-iconv*.rpm'
Preparing packages for installation...
mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14
mingw32-win-iconv-static-0.0.1-1.fc14
mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.fc14
$ rpm -qa | grep mingw32-iconv
mingw32-iconv-debuginfo-1.12-12.fc12.noarch
[!] mingw32-iconv-debuginfo-1.12-12.fc12.noarch should have been removed.
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-win-iconv
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 63
mingw32-runtime
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-win-iconv
mingw32-iconv = 1.12-13.fc14
mingw32(libiconv.dll)
mingw32-win-iconv = 0.0.1-1.fc14
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-win-iconv-static
mingw32-win-iconv = 0.0.1-1.fc14
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 63
mingw32-runtime
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-win-iconv-static
mingw32-iconv-static = 1.12-13.fc14
mingw32-win-iconv-static = 0.0.1-1.fc14
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 63
mingw32-runtime
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Does not require mingw32-win-iconv, but apparently native debuginfos are
similar, so I guess this is fine.
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo
mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo = 0.0.1-1.fc14
[!] Must also provide mingw32-iconv-debuginfo = 1.12-13.fc14
$ mock -r fedora-14-x86_64
~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
$ mock -r fedora-14-i386
~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
Both work.
Testing
-------
$ wget http://win-iconv.googlecode.com/svn-history/r10/trunk/win_iconv_test.c
and apply this patch: http://code.google.com/p/win-iconv/issues/detail?id=2
$ i686-pc-mingw32-gcc win_iconv_test.c -liconv
$ ./a.exe
All tests pass
$ i686-pc-mingw32-gcc win_iconv_test.c -Wl,-Bstatic -liconv
$ ./a.exe
All tests pass
=================================
Fedora MinGW Packaging Guidelines
=================================
[/] Track Fedora native package versions: stay at same version, include all the
same patches as the native Fedora package, and be built with the same
configuration options.
[+] Packages named by prefixing upstream package name with mingw32-
[+] Use of standard mingw RPM macros %{_mingw32_xxx}
[/] Dll dependencies expressed as mingw32(*.dll)
[+] Dependencies: %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %global
__find_requires %{_mingw32_findrequires} %global __find_provides
%{_mingw32_findprovides}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] All files are installed in %{_mingw32_sysroot}
[+] .dll in %{_mingw32_bindir}, .dll.a (and .la and .a where applicable) in
%{_mingw32_libdir}
[/] No man and info files which are already in Fedora native package
[+] Static libraries in -static subpackage
[+] Stripping: %global __strip %{_mingw32_strip} %global __objdump
%{_mingw32_objdump}
Not in guidelines, but seems to be policy:
[+] Debuginfo: %define __debug_install_post %{_mingw32_debug_install_post}
%{_mingw32_debug_package}
[!] Package does not contain .exe files.
Contains %{_mingw32_bindir}/win_iconv.exe; is this required for the
MinGW compile stack?
===========================
Fedora Packaging Guidelines
===========================
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
readme.txt contains license
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[*] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[/] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Build tested on i386 and x86_64.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[/] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
Summary of issues
-----------------
* I could be missing something, but win_iconv.exe should probably be removed
from the package as it is not required to compile against iconv.
* Somehow, mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo should provide mingw32-iconv-debuginfo,
so mingw32-iconv-debuginfo gets deleted when installing
mingw32-win-iconv-debuginfo.
* Not really an issue, but a new version is available upstream (0.0.2), which
also includes the static compile patch.
* A final obvious comment: the original mingw32-iconv package exposes more (but
non-standard) functions, so switching to mingw32-win-iconv breaks applications
that rely on these non-standard extensions. As indicated by Erik, this is
intentional, and no serious problems are expected?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list