[Bug 188090] Review Request: gpsd

[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: gpsd


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188090


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-04-09 19:22 EST -------
A review:

See Below - Rpmlint output.
OK - Package name.
OK - Spec file name matches.
OK - Package guidelines.
OK - Licsense. (BSD)
OK - License field matches in spec.
OK - License included in files
OK - Spec in american english
OK - Spec legible
See below- Md5sum of source from upstream
OK - Compiles and builds on one arch at least.
See below - All required buildrequires included?
OK - Ldconfig in post/postun if including libs.
OK - Owns all directories it creates.
OK - No duplicate files in %files listing.
OK - Permissions on files correct.
OK - Clean section correct.
OK - Macros consistant.
OK - Code not content.
OK - Header files/libs in a devel package.
OK - .so files in devel package.
OK - Devel package requires base package.
OK - No .la files.
OK - .desktop file if a GUI app
OK - Doesn't own any files/dirs that are already owned by others.

Items needing attention:

1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match:

4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz
8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd  gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1

2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel?
You might consider using a dist tag...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires.

3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with
--disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging.

4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint
can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files
so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE
against rpmlint to allow this case?

5. I see in the build logs:
xmlto man gps.xml
make[1]: xmlto: Command not found
make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored)

Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed?

6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir,
should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the
exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in
the base build group, so it works)

7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap'
from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.