[Bug 226008] Merge Review: libgcrypt

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 3 08:36:51 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=226008

--- Comment #2 from Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> 2010-02-03 03:36:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> rpmlint:
> > libgcrypt.src: W: strange-permission hobble-libgcrypt 0755
> > libgcrypt.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> Include license text at the very minimum - see below; including AUTHORS
> ChangeLog NEWS README (?) THANKS TODO wouldn't hurt either.
Fixed. (I did not include ChangeLog and README as they are not much useful.)

> > libgcrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /lib64/.libgcrypt.so.11.hmac
> See recent discussion on fedora-devel
Technically this file (in contrary to the .hmac files in bin dirs) does not
break the FHS. It is still not completely decided where this file should live
in case of libgcrypt as the library is not in %{_libdir} but in /%{_lib}

> * libgcrypt-devel contains files under GPLv2+: gcrypt.{texi,info},dumpsexp.c
>   => use "License: GPLv2+", or perhaps better "License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+",
>   or split the package
Fixed.

> * libgcrypt should contain %doc COPYING.LIB,
Fixed.

>   libgcrypt-devel %doc COPYING
Fixed.

> * "The BuildRoot value MUST be below %{_tmppath}/ and MUST contain at least
> %{name}, %{version} and %{release}:" - %release is not used
Fixed.

> * Can you avoid %makeinstall? src/Makefile.in seems to support DESTDIR.
Fixed.

> * Use %global instead of %define
Not fixed. This is not a MUST and here the %define works fine and will work
fine in future rpm versions as well.

> *
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment    
I've added a comment.

Here is a new build with the problems fixed.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1960493

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.



More information about the package-review mailing list