[Bug 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus

[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: evolution-brutus
Alias: evolution-brutus

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-11-03 12:22 EST -------
2nd review of this package:

A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :

* Use rpmlint
  rpmlint is not yet silent.
---------------------------------------------------------
W: evolution-brutus devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libBrutusd-1.0.so
W: evolution-brutus devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libBrutus-1.0.so
W: evolution-brutus devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libBrutusPROXY-1.0.so
W: evolution-brutus devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libBrutusSTUBS-1.0.so
W: evolution-brutus devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libBrutusSKELS-1.0.so
---------------------------------------------------------
  These files should be in -devel package.

* BuildRequires:
  The following BR are redundant.
  - libglade2-devel <- this is required by gtkhtml3-devel
                    <- this is required by evolution-devel

* Requires:
  - For -devel package:
    Well, .pc files only includes:
---------------------------------------------------------
Requires: libIDL-2.0 >= 0.8.5, ORBit-2.0 >= 2.14.1, libBrutusSTUBS-1.0,
libBrutusSKELS-1.0
Requires: libIDL-2.0 >= 0.8.5, ORBit-2.0 >= 2.14.1, libBrutusSTUBS-1.0
Requires: libIDL-2.0 >= 0.8.5, ORBit-2.0 >= 2.14.1, libBrutusSTUBS-1.0
Requires: libIDL-2.0 >= 0.8.5, ORBit-2.0 >= 2.14.1 
Requires: libIDL-2.0 >= 0.8.5, ORBit-2.0 >= 2.14.1, libBrutusSTUBS-1.0
---------------------------------------------------------
    This usually means that -devel package only requies:
    * main package
    * pkgconfig
    * ORBit2-devel (libIDL-devel is required by ORBit2-devel)

    Would you explain why -devel package requires some extra packages?

  - By the way, .pc files includes:
    Cflags: <skip> -I/lib/glib-2.0/include
    This causes no problem (so this is not a blocker), however, this makes
    no sense.

= From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: None

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept
this package, someone (I am a candidate) should sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to formally review other 
submitters' review request and approve the packages. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to "show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines".

Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a "pre-review" (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review) of other person's review request.

Please check the details on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored


-- 
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.