[Bug 171801] Review Request: libspectrum, lib765 and libdsk - libraries required for the fuse-emulator

[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: libspectrum, lib765 and libdsk - libraries required for the fuse-emulator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171801


paul at city-fan.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com              |paul at city-fan.org
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2005-10-28 11:13 EST -------
Review (libdsk package ONLY):

- rpmlint clean, apart from debuginfo package
- package naming OK
- license is GPL
- spec file written in English and is legible
- could not check sources because upstream doesn't seem to archive old
  versions
- package builds OK in mock for rawhide (i386) and also on RHEL3 (x86_64)
- no locales to worry about
- ldconfig called correctly in scriptlets
- not relocatable
- no directory ownership or permissions issues
- no duplicate files
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is fairly consistent
- code, not content
- no large docs
- docs don't affect runtime
- no pkgconfig file to worry about
- devel files properly included in -devel subpackage
- libtool archive excluded properly
- no desktop entry needed

Needswork:

- spec file name should be libdsk.spec, not libdsk-1.1.4-1.spec
- there should be no packager: or vendor: tags
- use full URL for Source:, e.g.
  http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/Unix/LibDsk/libdsk-%{version}.tar.gz
- please used standard Fedora Extras buildroot:
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- buildreqs sed and perl aren't required as they part of the minimal
  build environment - see the "Exceptions" list in the Packaging
  Guidelines page on the wiki
- license is "GPL", not "distributable"
- "%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}" should be in %install, not %prep
- don't include INSTALL in the docs because it's not relevant to users of the
  packaged RPM
- don't include static libraries without a good reason

Notes:

- version 1.1.6 is available from upstream
- "Applications/System" (same as mtools) would probably be a better choise for
  the group of the -tools subpackage
- if the edit of libtool (hardcode_libdir_flag_spec etc.) is actually necessary
  (is it?), please add a comment to the spec explaining it
- "%{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install" is preferred to "%makeinstall" when
  possible
- use %{?_smp_mflags} with make when possible
- consider moving doc/libdsk* to the -devel subpackage
- consider making the dependency of the tools package on the main library
  package as tight as the -devel package (Requires: %{name} =
  %{version}-%{release}) or just leave out the explicit dep altogether and let
  RPM's automatic library dependencies handle it



-- 
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.