[Bug 530617] Review Request: libixp - Stand-alone client/server 9P library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530617





--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com>  2009-12-14 08:00:31 EDT ---
This doesn't fix the issues since now you've added further problems. Probably
it's necessary to expand a bit:


> %package        devel
> Provides:       %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}

This combination, a -devel package providing a virtual -static package, is
dangerous, because it is special-case 2 on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
It requires special attention during review and later updates.

$ rpmls -p libixp-devel-0.5-3.fc12.i686.rpm | grep -v shar
-rw-r--r--  /usr/include/ixp.h
-rw-r--r--  /usr/include/ixp_srvutil.h

Package doesn't contain any static library. Raises the question whether a) the
header files contain enough code fragments that would be inserted when
compiling them, or b) whether a library for these API headers is missing?

The answer is yes to b). After disabling the static build, the shared library
for this API is missing, because it is misplaced in the "ixpc" subpackage:

$ rpmls -p ixpc-0.5-3.fc12.i686.rpm | head -3
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/ixpc
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib/libixp.so
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/lib/libixp_pthread.so

This needs work. libixp-devel alone is useless. No library to link with. Notice
how /usr/bin/ixpc and examples are linked with -lixp.

rpmlint also prints new warnings when running it on the built rpms:
ixpc.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libixp_pthread.so
ixpc.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libixp.so

No versioned SONAME, no SONAME at all, automatic RPM dependencies will be less
helpful => pray that libixp API and ABI will stay stable.

$ rpm -qpR ixpc-0.5-3.fc12.i686.rpm | grep ixp
libixp.so  


* A shared library linked with executables, such as /usr/bin/ixpc, will benefit
from adding the /sbin/ldconfig scriptlets (which were inappropriate with only
the static lib).


* The CFLAGS still look strange. See build.log. /usr/local/include at beginning
of search paths. %optflags at the beginning, too, with a multitude of -O1, -O0
and other optimisations overriding them more than once.

-- 
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.