https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) <psimerda(a)redhat.com> ---
Created attachment 889255
-->
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=889255&action=edit
changes
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)
> URL:
https://sourceware.org/netresolve/
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /netresolve/ on this server.
Yes, the upstream website hasn't been launched yet but I received numerous
requests to come up with a Fedora package.
It is a git snapshot and the sourceware git doesn't offer tarballs. I already
contacted sourceware maintainers about it.
> %package devel
> Summary: Development files for getdns
> Group: Development/Libraries
If you set the optional Group tag for this subpackage, why is it missing in
the base package? "Group: System Environment/Libraries"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Added.
Fixed.
> Requires: pkgconfig
There are automatic pkgconfig dependencies for a long time. Query the built
packages. You would only need this explicit dep for EL5. But the package
does not include any .pc file, so the dependency is superfluous currently.
Removed.
> %post
> /sbin/ldconfig
>
> %postun
> /sbin/ldconfig
If you don't to execute anything else, consider executing ldconfig directly
instead of running it within a /bin/sh script:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Done.
> %doc NEWS COPYING
Why not include README and TODO?
Added.
Instead, the NEWS file contents are rather useless so far.
Let's get ready for the releases.
Btw, it declares this as "0.0.1", but if there is a 0.0.1
release, the RPM
package ought not apply the pre-release snapshot versioning scheme, but
apply the post-release versioning scheme:
This is a 0.0.1 pre-release package, no release exists, yet.
Fixed.
> build.log
Output is non-verbose. One cannot see whether Fedora's %optflags are used,
for example, and one cannot verify the compiler/preprocessor settings.
Fixed.
Is the included "tests" directory suitable for running it
at build-time in
the spec %check section?
Definitely yes.
> checking for ARES... yes
> checking for ub_ctx_create in -llibunbound... no
This check fails, but it linked with libunbound nevertheless. Suspicious.
Fixed upstream.
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=netresolve.git;a=commitdiff;h=371bf5d950a57...
Will attach new spec and srpm later.
--
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