[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-01-28 12:52:44 --- Comment #12 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Ok since dunst package no more requires inih library, I am closing this since there is no need for this package anymore. Thank you very much for help. Here is the bug that required inih: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k28tuvDGxAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co |nob...@fedoraproject.org |m | Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nsN6QUSO2Oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Yes, upstream name is inih, too. IMO, it would be smarter to rename the src.rpm (and the Fedora package git repository) to inih. I don't see any value in naming the src.rpm inih-devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ij05TYCEPVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- The build.log: g++ -I.. -g -O2 -c ../ini.c -o ../ini.o That means it doesn't use Fedora's global optflags yet. They are passed as EXTRACFLAGS=… to Make, but apparently that doesn't work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T1aGHv4GYFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #9 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Ok so please confirm if I understand correctly - you recommend to name the src.rpm as inih creating package inih-devel? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XeRRNa9UH9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #7) Wouldn't it be more future-proof to name the src.rpm inih? I understand, but I have to follow Packaging Static Libraries. Or did I misinterpret something? This wouldn't break the packaging guidelines, as far as I can evaluate. The inih source rpm doesn't result in a inih package, but in inih-static only. This way it can uniquely recognized as a static library package. The virtual inih-devel package is rather unneeded. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9ObaqBXHx0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #7 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Sorry for the delay. Um, there's little reason to include static libraries in -debuginfo packages, as static libraries always contain the needed symbols to get a backtrace, and are (or at least were on ~RHL9 time frame) including debugging info in the *.a files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209316 Turning off debuginfo as it does not make any sense, or little. I tried to find more info about that, but could not find anything relevant. Wouldn't it be more future-proof to name the src.rpm inih? I understand, but I have to follow Packaging Static Libraries. Or did I misinterpret something? Summary fixed. https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/commit/2c75164318d9bd69519f60123afd0847c161b1e0 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4868819 Please ping me if you want to proceed with the formal review and I will upload SPEC/SRPM files. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=guqEYXl7yia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
I'm a bit confused about:
http://www.debuginfo.com/articles/gendebuginfo.html#debuginfostaticlib
That's a page about Visual C++.
Name: inih-devel
Provides: inih-static = %{version}-%{release}
Wouldn't it be more future-proof to name the src.rpm inih? And make it build
only a -devel subpackage with a virtual -static package (or vice versa).
Summary: Simple INI file parser
Summary: Simple INI file parser library
Mentioning the term library could be helpful as the package name does not
start with lib.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gFEG0OjIFma=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Alias||inih-devel Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4724084 $ rpmlint -i -v * inih-devel-debuginfo.i686: I: checking inih-devel-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable creation of the debuginfo package. inih-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking inih-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable creation of the debuginfo package. inih-devel.i686: I: checking inih-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel.src: I: checking inih-devel.src: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel.src: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_r26.zip (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_r26.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. inih-devel.x86_64: I: checking inih-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel.spec: I: checking-url http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_r26.zip (timeout 10 seconds) inih-devel.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_r26.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. The Googlecode tarball is downloadable with wget, no problem. The debuginfo package is empty. The EXTRACFLAGS statement seems to doesn't work. I'm wondering if it is possible to get debuginfo for static libraries...? I'm a bit confused about: http://www.debuginfo.com/articles/gendebuginfo.html#debuginfostaticlib -- 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 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #4 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Right, SPEC: https://raw.github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/master/inih-devel.spec SRPM: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/inih-devel/r26-1/inih-devel-r26-1.fc19.src.rpm RPM: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/inih-devel/r26-1/inih-devel-r26-1.fc19.x86_64.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 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||852211 (dunst) -- 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 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Keep in mind, if you link to packages from a Koji scratch build, these packages will be crowded after two weeks. This has been happened now... That's why the links to rpm and srpm are 404. -- 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 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #2 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Headers and source URL fixed, thanks! I believe according to the guidelines I should follow this rule: Static libraries only. When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also must have a virtual Provide for the *-static package. Therefore I created -devel package which provides -static package. SPEC: https://raw.github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/master/inih-devel.spec RPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4331/4594331/inih-devel-r26-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4331/4594331/inih-devel-r26-1.fc19.src.rpm https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/commit/e3d646ff0f071ad31aedfe0c71da21fe81302ab7 (I forgot to bump release, I apologize for that.). -- 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 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi ---
URL: http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_%{version}.zip
Source0: inih_%{version}.zip
This is wrong. It should be
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source
URL: http://inih.googlecode.com/
Source0: http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_%{version}.zip
**
No headers?!
**
Static library must be in -static package.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=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
