Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225989
Summary: Merge Review: libbonobo Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: rstrode@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: libbonobo
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libbonobo/ Initial Owner: rstrode@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: libbonobo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225989
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |226223
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=225989
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |davidz@redhat.com, | |limburgher@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |limburgher@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
Bug 225989 depends on bug 226223, which changed state.
Bug 226223 Summary: Merge Review: ORBit2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226223
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-09 14:14:57 EDT --- - rpmlint checks return:
festival.spec:212: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:213: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festvox-kallpc16k festival.spec:221: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:222: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festvox-kedlpc16k festival.spec:230: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:238: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:246: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:254: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:262: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:270: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:278: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice festival.spec:286: W: unversioned-explicit-provides festival-voice The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
Should be fixed.
festival.spec:1080: W: macro-in-%changelog %{festivalversion} festival.spec:1157: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_bindir} Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
Trivial to fix.
festival.spec:746: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab: line 746) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
Trivial to fix.
Lots of no-manpage, wrong end of line encoding, no-shebang or spurious executable perms.
festival-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on festival/festival-libs/libfestival festival-lib.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency festival-speechtools-libs You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags.
Fix.
festival-speechtools-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libestbase.so.1.2.96.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation.
festival-speechtools-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libestools.so.1.2.96.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation.
festival-speechtools-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libeststring.so.1.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation.
Should be fixed if at all possible.
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( MIT and GPL+ and TCL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream
Though it's ancient. . . and the doc versions still don't match.
- package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r
Other than the above, not much to do, let me know if you want me to commit anything.
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=225989
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-09 14:16:11 EDT --- Sorry, wrong bug. . .ignore that comment.
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=225989
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|davidz@redhat.com |
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-09 14:24:20 EDT --- - rpmlint checks return:
libbonobo.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bonobo-activation libbonobo.spec:42: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bonobo-activation-devel The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible.
Fix.
libbonobo.spec:72: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo-2.0/samples/bonobo-echo-2 A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
libbonobo.spec:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
libbonobo.spec:106: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
libbonobo.spec:107: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
Fix.
libbonobo.spec: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: libbonobo-multishlib.patch A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch.
Fix if possible.
Ignorable spelling error.
libbonobo.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion bonobo-activation obsoletes bonobo-activation = 2.32.1-2.fc18 The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones.
libbonobo-devel.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion bonobo-activation-devel obsoletes bonobo-activation-devel = 2.32.1-2.fc18 The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones.
Fix.
libbonobo.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bonobo-activation/bonobo-activation-config.xml A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here
Fix if reasonable.
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r
So it's just the rpmlitn bits, let me know if you want me to commit anything.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org