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: gdk-pixbuf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194353
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 2006-06-16 17:21 EST -------
Since I need this for xosd, here's a review:
The URL's in comment #1 aren't right, I assume you meant:
http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-24.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf.spec
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
05fcb68ceaa338614ab650c775efc2f2 gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0.tar.bz2
05fcb68ceaa338614ab650c775efc2f2 gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0.tar.bz2.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See Below - .la files are removed.
N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. Source: line is wrong, should be:
ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
2. URL: line is generic www.gnome.org. Is there a home URL?
Possibly: http://developer.gnome.org/arch/imaging/gdkpixbuf.html ?
3. Should 'build_gnome' be always 0 on fedora? Perhaps remove the conditional
entirely. (since this is gnome1, right?)
4. Perhaps remove the old AS21 automake cruft conditionals?
5. .la files should be removed always, should just remove the flags controlling
that.
6. Is there any need for the .a static libs?
7. rpmlint output:
W: gdk-pixbuf buildprereq-use gnome-libs-devel
W: gdk-pixbuf buildprereq-use audiofile
W: gdk-pixbuf buildprereq-use /usr/bin/automake-1.4
buildprereq-use :
The use of BuildPreReq is deprecated, build dependencies are always required
before a package can be built. Use plain BuildRequires instead.
E: gdk-pixbuf broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: gnome-libs-devel
E: gdk-pixbuf broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: audiofile
E: gdk-pixbuf broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: /usr/bin/automake-1.4
broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires :
Requires(pre,post) is accepted by rpm but leads to strange behaviour.
You should use Requires(pre) and Requires(post) instead.
W: gdk-pixbuf-devel no-documentation
That one can be ignored, but the others should be fixed.
--
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.