[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 17 06:23:32 UTC 2006


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: rasqal - RDF query library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-17 02:15 EST -------
Builds fine on x86_64 development.  rpmlint has this to say:

W: rasqal invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0
W: rasqal-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0
W: rasqal-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0

rpmlint likes to see "Apache License" but still doesn't know what to do with the
version; I would suggest using "LGPL or Apache License 2.0".

W: rasqal no-version-in-last-changelog
W: rasqal-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog
W: rasqal-devel no-version-in-last-changelog

The accepted changelog format includes "version-release" after the email address.

E: rasqal binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/roqet ['/usr/lib64']

You should eliminate the use of rpath if at all possible.  You can do this by
adding BuildRequires: libtool, then adding "LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool" on the
make line, and deleting any *.a files when you delete the *.la files.  I've
verified that this works but you should retest the package to make sure nothing
has broken.

Additional comments about the specfile:

%makeinstall should not be used. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall

Consider adding %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line.  In addition, your passing of
OPTIMIZE doesn't seem to have any effect; gcc is still called with the
appropriate options even after deleting it.

You use %{__make}, but don't use %{__rm} or %{__install}.  Macro use should be
consistent; it is up to you to use the style you prefer, but you should not mix
styles.

These are all pretty minor, and fixing them up doesn't seem to harm anything,
but you should still test things out.

Also, there seems to be an extensive test suite included.  I added a quick
%check section and it seems there are some off failures and such all over.  I'm
not sure if that's expected behavior or not.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list