[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Sep 9 23:55:51 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: codeblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-09-09 19:55 EST -------
I can't check the upstream source. Could you provide a quick script in the
package for grabbing the source from the repository and generating the tarball?
I know if won't compare the same due to directory timestamps but I can at least
do a recursive diff.
Any reason why you don't use the %configure macro instead of listing out that
long configure line?
/usr/lib64/codeblocks seems to be unowned.
You don't seem to install the desktop file properly. Generally you should use
desktop-file-install.
X source files match upstream (can't check)
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has only ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
codeblocks-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libastyle.so()(64bit)
libautosave.so()(64bit)
libclasswizard.so()(64bit)
libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit)
libcodecompletion.so()(64bit)
libcompiler.so()(64bit)
libdebuggergdb.so()(64bit)
libdefaultmimehandler.so()(64bit)
libscriptedwizard.so()(64bit)
libtodo.so()(64bit)
codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.3)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
codeblocks-contrib-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libbyogames.so()(64bit)
libcb_koders.so()(64bit)
libcodesnippets.so()(64bit)
libcodestat.so()(64bit)
libdragscroll.so()(64bit)
libenvvars.so()(64bit)
libexporter.so()(64bit)
libhelp_plugin.so()(64bit)
libkeybinder.so()(64bit)
libprofiler.so()(64bit)
libwxsmith.so()(64bit)
codeblocks-contrib = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6
=
codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6
libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0()(64bit)
libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit)
codeblocks-devel-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm
codeblocks-devel = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6
=
codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6
libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths; ldconfig is
called as necessary and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.
* package is not relocatable.
X owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* header files are content used by the package.
* pkgconfig file is in the -devel package.
* no libtool .la droppings.
X desktop file does not seem to be installed properly.
--
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