https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943526

Otto Urpelainen <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
           Assignee|[email protected]    |[email protected]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
                   |                            |needinfo?([email protected]
                   |                            |et)



--- Comment #3 from Otto Urpelainen <[email protected]> ---
I will review. This looks simple enough, but is the first time I encounter
libtool and pkgconfig, so please be patient if I need a bit of time to
understand the build system.

Issues found by running fedora-review and inspecting output follow. This is
just the first look at the package, so there may still be other issues that
automation cannot detect:

- Libtool archives (.la) should not be packaged
  Note: libuev : /usr/lib64/libuev.la
  See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries

- Development (unversioned) .so files should be in the -devel subpackage.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

- Static library libuev.a should not be included at all, the shared object
  should be used by all dependencies. If the static library is really required
  for some reason, it should go to -static subpackage.
  See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries

- Rpmlint reveals the following problems:

    libuev.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.3-1 ['2.3.2-1.fc35',
'2.3.2-1']
    libuev.src:33: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
33)

- Complains about the use of AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in:
libuev-2.3.2/configure.ac:7
  This is just an extra item, however it would be nice to contact upstream
about using its replacement.
  See:
https://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/automake-1.7.2/html_chapter/automake_5.html#SEC23

Also I noticed a strange thing: the rpm both Requires and Provides
libuev.so.2()(64bit). I need to look deeper into that, how that happened and is
that a problem.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Reply via email to