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=226024
Summary: Merge Review: libgssapi 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: steved@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: libgssapi
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libgssapi/ Initial Owner: steved@redhat.com
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=226024
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi
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=226024
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-07-16 07:59:51 EDT --- Taking over review.
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=226024
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-07-16 08:22:15 EDT --- MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Obsolete buildroot, obsolete PreReq usage. - %configure done in %prep instead of %build, use of %buildroot in %configure. - %makeinstall used instead of make install DESTDIR=%buildroot
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Time stamps on headers are not preserved.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. ~OK - No need to set the permissions manually.
MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Missing COPYING.
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NEEDSWORK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. NEEDSWORK - Can't drop them now, though, since they already exist in the package.
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
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=226024
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-07-16 08:23:22 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=353975) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=353975) Patch to spec file in devel branch that fixes all issues
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=226024
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-07-16 08:24:02 EDT --- Apply the patch in comment #3 to the devel branch and I'll approve the package.
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=226024
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-05 07:24:16 EDT --- ping steved
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=226024
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag|needinfo? |
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-09-25 06:18:56 EDT --- All issues were addressed and fixed.
I just wondering who's still requiring static library, and I hope that someone will remove *.la file completely :) (can't do it by myself, since it will be a change in ABI).
I just updated cvs, and will rebuild it shortly.
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=226024
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-25 06:48:01 EDT --- libgssapi-0.11-7.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgssapi-0.11-7.fc11
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=226024
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-25 06:48:06 EDT --- libgssapi-0.11-7.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgssapi-0.11-7.fc10
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=226024
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-25 08:58:33 EDT --- Can you drop the static library altogether?
You can drop the .la files in rawhide, since ABI changes are allowed in rawhide.
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=226024
--- Comment #10 from Steve Dickson steved@redhat.com 2009-09-25 15:47:01 EDT --- I would say go for it... if some complains we can always put it back or figure out why they need it...
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=226024
--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-09-26 08:33:40 EDT --- Done (in devel branch).
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=226024
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-26 08:40:11 EDT --- Hmm, you shouldn't need to obsolete the static library since it hasn't been in existence as a separate package and you just added the static provide a day ago.
**
All issues have been fixed and this package has been
APPROVED
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=226024
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-09-26 08:53:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
Hmm, you shouldn't need to obsolete the static library since it hasn't been in existence as a separate package and you just added the static provide a day ago.
I did it just to be sure that everything will be ok. :)
All issues have been fixed and this package has been
APPROVED
Good. I suppose that it's safe to close this ticket.
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=226024
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-06 23:11:59 EDT --- libgssapi-0.11-7.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=226024
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-06 23:13:10 EDT --- libgssapi-0.11-7.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org