[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions

Fri Feb 15 15:33:02 UTC 2008

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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633

------- Additional Comments From langel at redhat.com  2008-02-15 10:33 EST -------
There are only a couple of issues I found. Please read the review below. With
these problems assessed/fixed, the package is approved.

Why are *.h files in /usr/lib/libffi-2.99.8/include and not /usr/include?

-------

rpmlint:

libffi-devel.i686: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Verify this is ok.

Packaging Guidelines

   1. Naming
	ok
   2. Legal
         1. Licensing
         2. Shareware
         3. Patents
         4. Emulators
         5. Binary Firmware
	ok

   3. No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
	None.

   4. Writing a package from scratch
	Done.

   5. Modifying an existing package
	NA

   6. Filesystem Layout
         1. Libexecdir
	ok

   7. Use rpmlint
         1. Rpmlint Errors
	See above.

   8. Changelogs
	correct.

   9. Tags
	None.

  10. BuildRoot tag
         1. Prepping BuildRoot For %install
	Done.

  11. Requires
         1. PreReq
         2. File Dependencies
	ok.

  12. BuildRequires
        ok.

  13. Summary and description
	Can you add more to the summary?

  14. Encoding
         Fine.

  15. Documentation
	ok.

  16. Compiler flags
	ok.

  17. Debuginfo packages
	ok.

  18. Exclusion of Static Libraries
         .la's removed. good.

  19. Duplication of system libraries
	none.

  20. Beware of Rpath
  21. Configuration files
  22. Init Scripts
  23. Desktop files
  24. Macros
         ok
  25. Handling Locale Files
	NA
  26. Timestamps
  27. Parallel make
  28. Scriptlets requirements
  29. Running scriptlets only in certain situations
  30. Scriplets are only allowed to write in certain directories
  31. Conditional dependencies
	none.
  32. Build packages with separate user accounts
  33. Relocatable packages
  34. Code Vs Content
  35. File and Directory Ownership
	ok.
  36. Users and Groups
  37. Web Applications
  38. Conflicts
	none.
  39. No External Kernel Modules

      - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
      - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
      - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming
Guidelines.
      - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
      - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
      - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
      - MUST: 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.
      - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
      - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
      - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

Done.

      - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one supported architecture.
Works on i686.

      - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
Done.

      - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not
just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig
in %post and %postun. 

Done.

      - MUST: 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. 
      - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
      - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
      - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
      - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
      - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
      - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
      - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
      - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
      - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

/usr/lib/libffi-2.99.4/include/ffi.h
/usr/lib/libffi-2.99.4/include/ffitarget.h

Why aren't these headers installed in /usr/include/ ?

      - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
      - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).

Must add Requires: pkgconfig 

      - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a
-devel package.
      - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
      - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should
be removed in the spec.
done.
      - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the
desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged
GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
spec file with your explanation.
      - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package
owns, then please present that at package review time.
      - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
      - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

      - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
      - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
      - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
      - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
      - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
      - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
      - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.

ok.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.