[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-14 03:27 EST --- 17302 (gnome-libs): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/17302-gnome-libs-1.4.2-3.fc6/ owners.list updated. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-13 14:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Issues: 1. You include COPYING as a %doc, but this package is released under the LGPL. Should change that to the COPYING.LIB file instead. Actually the libraries are LGPL but the support tools are GPL, so I've added COPYING.LIB rather than replace COPYING. 2. Are there any upstream/full links for the other source files? Source2:gnome-libs-pofiles.tar.gz Source3:db.1.85.tar.gz Source4:utf8-ta.po I've added a full URL for db.1.85.tar.gz; the others appear only to exist in Red Hat/Fedora CVS (probably created by the Red Hat maintainer at some point during the package's long spell in Core), though I've added some comments about where to find them. 3. I assume that this package won't work with db4, and needs the old db-1.85 thats included? Gnome specifically uses db version 1.85 so that there's a consistent database format across different platforms/distribution releases etc. So yes, db 1.85 is needed. 4. Is this needed, since extras doesn't ship on ia64? ## from db1 %ifnarch ia64 Conflicts: glibc-devel 2.1.90 %endif Well, it doesn't stop us adding sparc support where needed, so I don't think there's any harm in supporting ia64. However, since this is a package for FC6 onwards and the conflict is with a rather ancient glibc version, I removed it anyway. 5. rpmlint has (on fc6/i386): W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.el W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.eo W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.he W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.hy W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.iso88592 W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.iso88595 W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ja W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/ gtkrc.ka_GE.georgianacademy W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ka_GE.georgianps W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ko W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ru W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.th W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.tr W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.uk W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.vi_VN.tcvn W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.vi_VN.viscii W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.zh_CN W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.zh_TW.Big5 W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mime-magic W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mime-magic.dat W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/paper.config W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sound/events/gnome.soundlist W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sound/events/gtk- events.soundlist Perhaps these should all be (noreplace)? Debatable. gnome-libs has historically always been packaged without the noreplace for these files. I'll change it if you insist though. E: gnome-libs non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper utmp E: gnome-libs setgid-binary /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper utmp 02755 E: gnome-libs non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper 02755 E: gnome-libs-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: gnome-libs-devel no-documentation Can be ignored I think. Agreed. on (fc6/x86_64): E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gconfigger ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-dump-metadata ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-name-service ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/loadshlib ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome_segv ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-gen-mimedb ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-moz-remote ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/goad-browser ['/usr/lib64'] Is there some way to remove the rpath? I used the FC6 libtool instead of the bundled one and that seems to have fixed it. Update packages: Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/gnome-libs.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/gnome-libs-1.4.2-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail:
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-13 21:31 EST --- all good on 1-4. (db1 source md5sum matches upstream) On item 5: Debatable. gnome-libs has historically always been packaged without the noreplace for these files. I'll change it if you insist though. I don't think thats a blocker... this package is unlikely to get much in the way of updates anyhow. The rpath issue looks to be all fixed up. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this package with NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-12 23:16 EST ---
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
6111e91b143a90afb30f7a8c1e6cbbd6 gnome-libs-1.4.2.tar.bz2
6111e91b143a90afb30f7a8c1e6cbbd6 gnome-libs-1.4.2.tar.bz2.1
see below
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.
Issues:
1. You include COPYING as a %doc, but this package is released under
the LGPL. Should change that to the COPYING.LIB file instead.
2. Are there any upstream/full links for the other source files?
Source2:gnome-libs-pofiles.tar.gz
Source3:db.1.85.tar.gz
Source4:utf8-ta.po
3. I assume that this package won't work with db4, and needs the
old db-1.85 thats included?
4. Is this needed, since extras doesn't ship on ia64?
## from db1
%ifnarch ia64
Conflicts: glibc-devel 2.1.90
%endif
5. rpmlint has (on fc6/i386):
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.el
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.eo
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.he
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.hy
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.iso88592
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.iso88595
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ja
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/
gtkrc.ka_GE.georgianacademy
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ka_GE.georgianps
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ko
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ru
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.th
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.tr
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.uk
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.vi_VN.tcvn
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.vi_VN.viscii
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.zh_CN
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.zh_TW.Big5
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mime-magic
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mime-magic.dat
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/paper.config
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sound/events/gnome.soundlist
W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sound/events/gtk-
events.soundlist
Perhaps these should all be (noreplace)?
E: gnome-libs non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper utmp
E: gnome-libs setgid-binary /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper utmp 02755
E: gnome-libs non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper 02755
E: gnome-libs-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: gnome-libs-devel no-documentation
Can be ignored I think.
on (fc6/x86_64):
E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gconfigger ['/usr/lib64']
E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-dump-metadata ['/usr/
lib64']
E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-name-service ['/usr/
lib64']
E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/loadshlib ['/usr/lib64']
E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome_segv ['/usr/lib64']
E: gnome-libs
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 Bug 198245 depends on bug 198247, which changed state. Bug 198247 Summary: Review Request: libpng10 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198247 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||200399 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198897 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||198246, 198247 OtherBugsDependingO||198244 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182320 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 12:12 EST --- Since -devel has files in %_datadir/aclocal, to avoid possible unowned dirs, it should: Requires: automake or Requires: %_datadir/aclocal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182320 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 13:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Since -devel has files in %_datadir/aclocal, to avoid possible unowned dirs, it should: Requires: automake or Requires: %_datadir/aclocal Fixed in -2: Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/gnome-libs.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/gnome-libs-1.4.2-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
