[Bug 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Dec 8 14:04:09 UTC 2006


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: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-12-08 09:04 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> I will provide you a review.  As I understand it, since you already have
> packages in FE, you do not need a sponsor.

Yes, I own some packages ;-)

> rpmlint on the srpm is clean.

It is also clean on the binary rpms, isn't it?

> When I try to mock-build the package (FC6), the build terminates with:
> checking for a readline compatible library... no
> configure: error: I could not find the readline library!
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.14834 (%build)

Yep, missing BR on readline-devel. I also added one on openssl-devel
since bes depends on openssl-devel, even though there is already an
indirect dependency (through libdap-devel -> curl-devel -> openssl-devel).

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bes-3.2.0-2.src.rpm

- add BuildRequires for readline-devel and openssl-devel



I had a look at configure.ac, and there is a (broken) macro to look for
kerberos, but after a look in the code, it doesn't seems to be used. 
kerberos is also pulled in as indirect dependency anyway.

The autoconf macros related with kerberos and openssl are broken,
but the libs/headers are in the standard places, and kerberos is unneeded
so everything is right. I'll try to work that out with upstream.

I know that there are many unneeded dependencies on sonames, as
ldd -u -r says, most of them come from libdap flags, I am also working
that out with upstream.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list