[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-02-19 05:24:26 --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- The initial build didn't reference this review request so it never auto-closed -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Pavel Raiskup changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1623787 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623787 [Bug 1623787] de-bundle liblzma/aes -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Pavel Raiskup changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1609830 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609830 [Bug 1609830] package minizip separately from zlib -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- All issues are fixed now, this package is APPROVED ps: if you have time could you review this in turn? it's been stalled for a while so if you'll wait until tomorrow I should have it modernized. Thanks in advance! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991284 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/P3SFBUDRXPWXD7ZBEP54DLQLVZXHOUZL/
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Patrik Novotný changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(panovotn@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Patrik Novotný --- Spec URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/minizip.spec SRPM URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Thank you for the suggestion. Mentioned issues should be fixed now. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WBO6SIS3LANFN4RLH6QXQYB7WMZ2WIP6/
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(panovotn@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
A few issues highlighted before that should be easy to fix and then I can
approve this.
Also one suggestion (feel free to use or not as you like): you can use
%autosetup that will also apply the patch for you automatically (you'll still
need to do the `rm -rf lib/bzip2` cleanup)
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25autosetup
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
%prep should have `rm -rf lib/bzip2` without %{buildroot}
- Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
devel subpackage should require cmake
- Requires correct, justified where necessary.
no need to manually require zlib:
$ rpm -qp --requires minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | grep -e zlib -e libz
libz.so.1()(64bit)
zlib
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in minizip
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 124 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1615381-minizip/licensecheck.txt
false positive due to lib/bzip2 not being erased correctly
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
%prep does not delete this correctly
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Patrik Novotný changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(panovotn@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Patrik Novotný --- Spec URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/minizip.spec SRPM URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Now it builds against the system bzip2 if available. I removed the bundled bzip2 code in %prep section. The patch from the previous version is now included in the new release. Linking against system bzip2 patch is now merged to master. I also removed all explicit dependencies except for zlib. Thank you for reviewing this package. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DFUBLRAJYIKZ3LLGJ2XFE36BY7JNZTM5/
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panov...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(panovotn@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- minizip currently bundles bzip2, could you either make it link against the system bzip2 library or turn it off? Also, the manually listed required packages are not necessary: ❯ rpm -qp --requires minizip-2.3.9-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libbsd libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) zlib -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QDC6G3QZARRVTGPDBUWAD6JZHMAMS2EM/
[Bug 1615381] Review Request: minizip - Minizip contrib in zlib with the latest bug fixes and advanced features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AJGO4H5DUJIP7XQ6HJP3CU7GZRXDLYWY/
