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=222347
Summary: Review Request: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: notting@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/g-wrap.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/g-wrap-1.9.6-8.src.rpm Description: scheme/C interface library used for GNUCash
Part of reviewing the GNUCash stack for the grand merger.
Only rpmlint complaints I know of is that g-wrap-devel has an include in /usr/{lib,lib64} - this is intentional as it's wordsize-specific and can't go in /usr/include.
Latest upstream version is 1.9.7, but as that has caused issues with gnucash, and gnucash is the only consumer of g-wrap... not updating.
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2007-01-17 17:47 EST ------- http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00017.html http://koti.welho.com/vskytta/install-infos/g-wrap.patch
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-01-18 12:23 EST ------- Thanks, fixed. -9 uploaded.
Note: the currently-in-development version of gnucash moves from g-wrap to swig for its guile bindings; when that version is added to the development tree, g-wrap will be orphaned, as nothing else uses it. I'll still maintain it for older trees that need it.
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review?
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-08 16:50 EST ------- rpmlint has some complaints:
This just looks like a typo in the changelog: W: g-wrap incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.9.6-10 1.9.6-9
I'm not really sure about these: W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-standard.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 I don't think they're especially problematic and I guess it's possible that they're necessary.
I admit I find it odd to see /usr/lib64/g-wrap/include/ffi.h: E: g-wrap-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Why not /usr/share/g-wrap, or with the rest of the installed headers in /usr/include/g-wrap?
Seems to me that the license is LGPL, not GPL. The libffi license seems to be MIT but that's compatible and doesn't change the overall license of the package.
I note that there is a test suite, but some notes about it being disabled on x86_64. I tried a quick "make check" on i386 rawhide and all the tests failed without attempting to actually test anything, so I must be missing something.
Review: * source files match upstream: ddb0e31d40581402d6d7045cce7cdc79e0bc0627831a4b12012f45703446d311 g-wrap-1.9.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. O latest version is 1.9.8, but there are issues preventing its use. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: g-wrap-1.9.6-9.x86_64.rpm libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit) libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit) g-wrap = 1.9.6-9 = /sbin/ldconfig guile libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libguile.so.17()(64bit) libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit) libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
g-wrap-devel-1.9.6-9.x86_64.rpm g-wrap-devel = 1.9.6-9 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info g-wrap = 1.9.6 guile-devel libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit) libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig
* %check is not present. Test suite doesn't seem to do much. * shared libraries present; ldconfig called as appropriate. * unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig, install-info). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * a pkgconfig file is present in -devel; pkgconfig dependency is there. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files.
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-06-08 17:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
rpmlint has some complaints: I admit I find it odd to see /usr/lib64/g-wrap/include/ffi.h: E: g-wrap-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Why not /usr/share/g-wrap, or with the rest of the installed headers in /usr/include/g-wrap?
It's wordsize-specific - having it in /usr/share or /usr/include would cause multilib conflicts.
Seems to me that the license is LGPL, not GPL. The libffi license seems to be MIT but that's compatible and doesn't change the overall license of the package.
Oops, fixed in CVS.
I note that there is a test suite, but some notes about it being disabled on x86_64. I tried a quick "make check" on i386 rawhide and all the tests failed without attempting to actually test anything, so I must be missing something.
The test suite has never seemed to work. I should have probably put more effort into figuring out why.
So...
- no libtool .la files.
These are re-added in the current package; see bug 238263. gnucash uses a version of libtool_ltdl as a module loader, and it does not work without either a) .la files b) .so files in the main package. As moving the .so files breaks multilib development, it was simplest to put the .la files back.
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-08 17:21 EST ------- Oh, I was reviewing the -9 package since that one was the last one mentioned in this ticket and the one the spec link above points to. Which version is current? Should I just get it from the old core CVS?
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-06-08 17:37 EST ------- Just grab the latest from /cvs/pkgs.
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-08 18:54 EST ------- OK, all that's really missing is some commentary in the spec as to why the .la files are included and why those headers are under /usr/lib. Heck, since this has already been imported, I'll even commit some if you like.
But I don't see anything holding up this package, so
APPROVED
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
notting@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-06-08 20:38 EST ------- Comments added in CVS.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: g-wrap New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-08 20:53 EST ------- CVS done.
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-18 14:45 EST ------- Can this ticket be closed now?
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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347
notting@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |1.9.6-12
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2007-06-18 14:51 EST ------- Sure.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org