[Bug 171336] Review Request: ldns

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: ldns


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171336


tcallawa at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com              |tcallawa at redhat.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com  2005-12-11 18:21 EST -------
Again, I made some minor cleanups:

- used %{?dist} (not mandatory)
- moved rm -rf %{buildroot} from %prep to %install
- # remove .la files
  rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
- %{_mandir}/*/* doesn't need to be marked as %doc
- nuked empty %pre
- used %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
- used %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
- no need for explicit "Requires: openssl", libcrypto.so.6 is detected as a dep
- ldns is not LGPL, it is BSD

Besides those minor items, it looked good. The library doesn't use versioned .so
files correctly, so its alright to have the .so files in the main package
instead of the usual split. I'm going to attach my cleaned-up spec, the review
is based on my spec. 

Good:

- rpmlint checks return:
W: ldns devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libldns.so
If libldns.so.1.0.0 existed, then I would want libldns.so in -devel, but since
it doesn't... safe to ignore.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (BSD) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r 

APPROVED (assuming that you use my spec file changes)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.