[Bug 487639] Review Request: armstrong - Powerful music sequencing library *** RENAMED PACKAGE ***

[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=487639





--- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>  2009-02-28 15:09:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> PRE-review for 0.2.6-2 (yes, PRE-review...)
> 

:) Thanks for the PRE-review 

> * About patch
>   - Would you explain what the soname "libzzub.so.0.3" "liblunarstd.so.0"
>     come from? 
>     (anyway the soname "libzzub.so.0.3 is wrong, it should be "libzzub.so.0"
>     or so)

If we use the original tarball with no patches, these libraries will be built
with no sonames.
The soname "libzzub.so.0.3" comes from the old libzzub package. There the
soname was set to "libzzub.so.0.2.3" . I changed this to "libzzub.so.0" now.

The soname "liblunarstd.so.0" is the soname I gave to this library. Otherwise
rpmlint will complain that there is no soname.

>   - Also, non-patched src/plugins/lunar/SConscript seems to be saying
>     that liblunarstd.so is a plugin module, not a system-wide library.
>     Are you sure that this file should really be system-wide library?
> 

>From my understanding this is a system-wide library. There are two systemwide
libraries provided by armstrong. One is libzzub, the other is liblunarstd. The
unpatched tarball has these two lines:
   In src/libzzub/SConscript :
      libzzub = localenv.SharedLibrary('${LIB_BUILD_PATH}/zzub',files)
   In src/plugins/lunar/SConscript :
      lunarstd = lunarstdenv.SharedLibrary('${LIB_BUILD_PATH}/lunarstd',
lunarstdfiles)[0]

That's why I believe that both are system-wide shared libraries. Note that
there are plugin module .so files in
   /usr/lib64/lunar/
   /usr/lib64/zzub/

> * License tag
>   - License tag is inherited to all subpackages unless explicitly
>     specified (try $ rpm -qi armstrong-devel or so. I think
>     this should just be "GPLv2+")
> 

Changed the license tag of -devel and pyzzub packages to GPLv2+

> * internal libraries
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> # Remove the binded libraries. We'll use the internal ones
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   - You mean "external ones"?
> 

I meant "internal Fedora libraries". I agree that there is some ambiguity in my
usage. I made this a little more clear on the SPEC file below..

> * Document directories
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> %doc installed_docs/*
> %{_defaultdocdir}/zzub
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   - With this armstrong will own two directories for documents,
>     %{_defaultdocdir}/{zzub,%{name}-%{version}}. I think
>     this is confusing and these directories should be unified.
>   - Also, anyway as this spec file has:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> # We want to install docs to the proper location:
> mkdir -p installed_docs
> mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/zzub/* installed_docs/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Currently %_defaultdocdir/zzub is just empty.

My bad. I changed the document directory structure when I was preparing the
SPEC file. I forgot to remove the %_defaultdocdir/zzub entry. Now it's gone.


Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/armstrong.spec
SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/armstrong-0.2.6-3.fc10.src.rpm

Changelog: 0.2.6-3
- License for -devel and pyzzub packages is GPLv2+
- Clarify system-wide library usage
- Fix sonames
- Don't package the empty directory %%_defaultdocdir/zzub

-- 
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.