[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library

[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: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Alias: idioskopos

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883


mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-12-01 09:35 EST -------
Well, first review for this:

A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Licensing
- Well, /usr/lib/pkgconfig/idioskopos-1.0.pc reads:
------------------------------------------------------
##   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify  ##
##   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as               ##
##   published by the Free Software Foundation version 2.1                 ##
------------------------------------------------------
  So this package is licensed under GPL, not LGPL because
  GPL is more strict than LGPL...

* BuildRequires:
  - Is m4 required? Mockbuild succeeds without m4 and rpmdiff
    shows no difference.

* Timestamps
  - Well, -devel package contains a lot of header files so
  keeping timestamps is highly preferable as
  * it shows if vendor (like you) have modified the original
    files
  * it shows when the files are created

  So keep timestamps, at least for header files.
  Usually,
--------------------------------------------------------
make INSTALL="install -p" install
--------------------------------------------------------
  plays the trick.

B. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
   (okay.)

C. Other things I have noticed:
* Spec file description
----------------------------------------------------------
%install
........
%{__cp} -ar docs/reference .
........
%doc ChangeLog reference
----------------------------------------------------------
   This should be okay with
---------------------------------------------------------
%install
........
.......
%doc ChangeLog docs/reference
---------------------------------------------------------

-- 
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.