[Bug 171314] Review Request: compat-gtkhtml36

[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: compat-gtkhtml36


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171314


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  2006-04-26 07:26 EST -------
Review:

- rpmlint OK (only warning is gtkhtml36-devel no-documentation, ignorable)
- package and spec naming OK
- package meets guidelines
- license is part GPL, part LGPL; spec matches, GPL text included, LGPL text
  missing
- spec file written in English and is legible
- sources match upstream
- package builds OK in mock for FC5 (i386) and installs OK with gtkhtml3
  present
- BR's OK
- %find_lang used appropriately
- /sbin/ldconfig called properly in %post and %postun
- not relocatable
- no duplicate files
- permissions OK, %defattr used properly
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is consistent
- code, not content
- no large docs
- docs don't affect runtime
- header files, pkgconfig file, and .so file properly placed in -devel
  subpackage
- devel package requires same release of base package
- libtool and static archives removed
- library package, not app, so no desktop file
- scriptlets are sane
- Compared with gtkhtml3.spec revision 1.30 in CVS; changes are limited to
  those mentioned in %changelog

Needswork:

- include COPYING.LIB as %doc
- Package needs to own %{_libdir}/gtkhtml (gtkhtml3 might not be installed)

Suggestions:

- Include BUGS as %doc
- Use FE-standard buildroot:
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Since patch2 is neither included in the SRPM nor applied, is there any point
  having it mentioned in the spec at all?

Really picky nits:

- "etc" (in summary for -devel) is an abbreviation and should be "etc."
- $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir} better written as $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} since
  %{_libdir}'s expansion always starts with "/"



-- 
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.