[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:26:32 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- templates_parser-11.6.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@zhukoff.net Flags||needinfo?(jul...@vgai.de) --- Comment #17 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net --- Please built templates_parser in rawhide. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jul...@vgai.de) | --- Comment #18 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- (In reply to comment #17) Please built templates_parser in rawhide. Thanks Sorry, must have missed that. Will do this evening. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #19 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- Should be built now, unless I understand it wrongly: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=14460 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #20 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net --- Yes, it's OK -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- templates_parser-11.6.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: templates_parser Short Description: AWS templates engine Owners: oenone Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- templates_parser-11.6.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/templates_parser-11.6.0-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andr...@bawue.net, ||kana...@kanarip.com, ||lxt...@gmail.com, ||m...@fabian-affolter.ch, ||sahar...@xs4all.nl Component|Package Review |p0rn-comfort Flags|fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(jul...@vgai.de) | --- Comment #11 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- Hi Björn, thanks for the review. I updated the package, including the manpages from the debian packages. URLS: SRPM: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-08-06/templates_parser-11.6.0-3.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-08-06/templates_parser.spec Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4363764 rpmlint: $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/templates_parser-*11.6.0-3*.rpm SRPMS/templates_parser-11.6.0-3.fc17.src.rpm templates_parser.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/templates_parser/libtemplates_parser-11.6.0.so templates_parser.x86_64: W: no-documentation templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/templates2ada templates_parser.src: W: invalid-url Source0: templates_parser-11.6.0.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Does this look okay now? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Component|p0rn-comfort|Package Review Assignee|bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #12 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- This looks good. This package is APPROVED. If you're quick with your SCM request you may be able to get it processed before Fedora 18 is branched tomorrow. Otherwise you'll need to request an f18 branch in the SCM request. If you want an f16 or el6 branch, then remember to hard-code the value of ExclusiveArch in those branches, as the macro GNAT_arches doesn't exist there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|lemen...@gmail.com |bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
Flags||needinfo?(jul...@vgai.de)
--- Comment #10 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se ---
Peter says he doesn't mind if I take over this ticket, so here's my formal
review:
Generic MUST Items:
· rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
templates_parser.src: W: invalid-url Source0: templates_parser-11.6.0.tar.xz
templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build
templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build
templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/templates2ada
templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary templates2ada
templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary templatespp
templates_parser.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/templates_parser/libtemplates_parser-11.6.0.so
templates_parser.x86_64: W: no-documentation
· There is no URL to the upstream source because it was taken from Git.
· The hidden directory in the debuginfo package is odd, but not something a
packager should be required to change.
· Executable stack is OK as noted in the Ada packaging guidelines.
· There are no documentation files to include in the base package. (README
contains only installation instructions.)
About man pages, see the separate point below. None of the other warnings are
blocking issues.
· The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
→ OK.
· The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
→ OK. The names match.
· The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
→ OK.
· The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
→ OK. The license is GPLv2+ with exceptions (GMGPL) according to the source
file headers.
· The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
→ OK.
· 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 must be included in %doc.
→ N/A. There is no separate license file.
· The spec file must be written in American English.
→ OK. The grammar isn't perfect but it's comprehensible.
· The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
→ OK.
· The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
→ OK. The contents of the tarball are identical to what I got from upstream
Git.
· The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
→ OK. It builds in Koji on at least x86 and x86-64.
· If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
→ OK. GNAT_arches is used.
· All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
→ OK.
· The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
→ N/A. No translations are included.
· Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
→ OK. ldconfig is called.
· The package must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
→ OK.
· If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package.
→ OK. The package isn't relocatable.
· The package must own all directories that it creates.
→ OK.
· The package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
→ OK.
· Permissions on files must be set properly.
→ OK.
· The package must consistently use macros.
→ OK.
· The package must contain code, or permissable content.
→ OK. Code.
· Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
→ OK. The documentation can reasonably be considered to not be large.
· If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
→ OK.
· Static libraries must be in a -static package.
→ N/A. Only shared libraries are packaged.
· Development files must be in a -devel package.
→ OK.
· In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
→ OK.
· Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
→ OK.
· Packages containing GUI applications must include a
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #9 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- Sorry, wrong URLs.. Here the correct ones: Spec file: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-06-29/templates_parser.spec SRPM: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-06-29/templates_parser-11.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #8 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- This package looks OK to me, so I pass the ball to Peter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #7 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- updated the package. Spec file: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-06-28/templates_parser.spec SRPM: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-06-28/templates_parser-11.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm koji build f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4207908 koji biuld f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4207903 rpmlint output: ]$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/templates_parser-* SRPMS/templates_parser-11.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm templates_parser.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US templates_parser.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/templates_parser/libtemplates_parser-11.6.0.so templates_parser.x86_64: W: no-documentation templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/templates2ada templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary templates2ada templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary templatespp templates_parser.src: W: invalid-url Source0: templates_parser-11.6.0.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- I'll review it. No, you don't need FE-NEEDSPONSOR anymore - I sponsored you already. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
--- Comment #2 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se ---
(In reply to comment #0)
how can i fix the error for debuginfo subpackage?
The debuginfo subpackage from Koji does have source files. I'm not sure what
went wrong with yours, but I've seen similar problems before. Are there any
symbolic links or bind mounts involved in the path to your rpmbuild directory?
Another question: Should GMGPL be added to the accepted licenses? It
basically is a GPLv2+ with linking exception. Or is GPLv2+ with exceptions
good enough?
I think GPLv2+ with exceptions is good, but if you want a more authoritative
answer you can ask on the legal mailing list, le...@lists.fedoraproject.org.
Here's what I have found in the package:
· Instead of pointing to the AWS page that doesn't describe Templates Parser, I
suggest pointing to the documentation:
http://docs.adacore.com/aws-docs/templates_parser.html
· The tarball shrinks by 93% if you add --exclude-vcs to the tar command.
· Please build and package the documentation. Add BuildRequires: texinfo-tex,
and make doc under %build. (Don't use _smp_mflags here, because that causes
docs/makefile to break.)
· Don't include the license field in subpackages unless it differs from the
base package.
· _GNAT_project_dir must be used. Pass I_GPR=%{_GNAT_project_dir}
I_TGP=%{_GNAT_project_dir}/templates_parser to make install.
· The link named %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{version} doesn't help with
anything. Nothing will be looking for that filename because the library has no
soname, so the library won't be found at run time unless a runpath is used.
Here's a patch to add a soname:
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/38.html
· ldconfig must be called. Add the following to the spec file:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
· Wouldn't it be nice to also package templates2ada and templatespp? I suggest
putting them in a subpackage named templates_parser-tools with the group field
set to Applications/Text.
See also these patches:
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/36.html
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/37.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
--- Comment #3 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thanks for your nice review! Helps me a lot.
The debuginfo subpackage from Koji does have source files. I'm not sure what
went wrong with yours, but I've seen similar problems before. Are there any
symbolic links or bind mounts involved in the path to your rpmbuild
directory?
yeah.. I have put the rpmbuild directory on a different location and symlinked
it from $HOME. I will try out without symlink.
Here's what I have found in the package:
· Instead of pointing to the AWS page that doesn't describe Templates
Parser, I suggest pointing to the documentation:
http://docs.adacore.com/aws-docs/templates_parser.html
Okay.
· The tarball shrinks by 93% if you add --exclude-vcs to the tar command.
I didn't know this option, thanks!
· Please build and package the documentation. Add BuildRequires:
texinfo-tex, and make doc under %build. (Don't use _smp_mflags here,
because that causes docs/makefile to break.)
Should the documentation go into a separate subpackage? %name-docs?
· Don't include the license field in subpackages unless it differs from the
base package.
Okay.
· _GNAT_project_dir must be used. Pass I_GPR=%{_GNAT_project_dir}
I_TGP=%{_GNAT_project_dir}/templates_parser to make install.
I left this out, because it was the same. But I do see the point, it might be
somewhere else. Will change.
· The link named %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{version} doesn't help with
anything. Nothing will be looking for that filename because the library has
no soname, so the library won't be found at run time unless a runpath is
used. Here's a patch to add a soname:
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/38.html
Didn't really know if soname is necessary or not. In #fedora-devel nobody could
give me a definite answer. About the patch you mention: if I understand
correctly, it makes the library file lib%{name}-%{version}.so, the version
before the .so. Should I change it like that?
· ldconfig must be called. Add the following to the spec file:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Yeah, forgot those.. This is my first library package, will add them.
· Wouldn't it be nice to also package templates2ada and templatespp? I
suggest putting them in a subpackage named templates_parser-tools with the
group field set to Applications/Text.
See also these patches:
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/36.html
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/37.html
Thanks, I will add the tools subpackage.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #4 from Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de --- This library can be compiled for static linking. Should this be added, too? If yes, xmlada should add the static libraries, too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
--- Comment #5 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se ---
Sorry Peter if I stole your review. Since I had been working on Templates
Parser I figured I should submit the notes I had.
(In reply to comment #3)
Should the documentation go into a separate subpackage? %name-docs?
You may choose to make a subpackage if you consider the documentation to be a
lot as the Packaging Guidelines say, or large as the Review Guidelines put
it. (It's a bit funny that the Review Guidelines have it as a MUST item that
large documentation must be in a subpackage, but leave it entirely to the
packager to define large.)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
Note that there is a risk that developers who install templates_parser-devel
won't notice that templates_parser-doc exists.
By the way, it may be a good idea to install the .info file in %{_infodir},
where the info command will presumably find it, but that's not something I'm
familiar with.
· _GNAT_project_dir must be used. Pass I_GPR=%{_GNAT_project_dir}
I_TGP=%{_GNAT_project_dir}/templates_parser to make install.
I left this out, because it was the same. But I do see the point, it might
be somewhere else. Will change.
It will be somewhere else in Fedora 18. So far /usr/lib/gnat has been the only
place where Gnatmake would look for project files. In GCC 4.7 it also looks in
/usr/share/gpr, which is a better place for architecture-independent files.
GPRbuild also knows to look in /usr/share/gpr, so I changed _GNAT_project_dir
in Rawhide.
Didn't really know if soname is necessary or not. In #fedora-devel nobody
could give me a definite answer.
The way I read the guidelines it's not a blocker if there is no soname: When a
shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager
should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file.
However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to
run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package.
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages) That means
that you can package the library without a soname, but then the unversioned
name must be present in %{_libdir}, and not only in the devel subpackage. The
problem with the current package is that the library is hidden in a
subdirectory and the link in %{_libdir} doesn't have the name that the loader
will look for unless the devel subpackage is installed.
If you add a soname, then the filename in %{_libdir} shall match the soname,
and the unversioned link goes in the devel subpackage.
About the patch you mention: if I
understand correctly, it makes the library file lib%{name}-%{version}.so,
the version before the .so. Should I change it like that?
I chose that format so that the soname will change in every release. Libgnat
for example uses that format. If you put the version after .so, then it will
be assumed that minor releases are guaranteed to be ABI-compatible, and that
the ABI changes only in major releases, so the soname will become
libtemplates_parser.so.11. The upstream developers make no such guarantees.
(If they did, the way to communicate it would be to include such a soname.)
(In reply to comment #4)
This library can be compiled for static linking. Should this be added, too?
Only if there is a compelling reason, which I don't think there is.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #6 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- Oh, and the recommended suffix for a documentation subpackage is -doc, without an S. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||712332 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||834747, 810676 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
