[Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats

[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: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-09-11 04:03 EST -------
Okay. I will review this package.
First review:

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

* License:
  - Well, how can I know that this package can be distributed under
    MIT? It seems that main package does not include any licence
    document.

* rpmlint:
  - is not silent.
W: gdal macro-in-%changelog configure
W: gdal macro-in-%changelog configure
W: gdal mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
  - Use %% in changelog so as the description in changelog is not
    expanded.
  - if it is difficult finding where tabs are used, use
    "sed -i -e 's|\t|  |g' gdal.spec", which automatically changes
    tabs in spec file into two spaces.

* Tags:
  - use %?dist tag

* Requires:
  - -python package requires python-numeric as gdal_merge.py includes
    the line: "import Numeric" (this dependency cannot be automatically
    checked).

* BuildRequires:
  - libjpeg-devel, zlib-devel, netcdf-devel <- required by hdf-devel
    (ditto requires for -devel package)

* Encoding
  - Several text files are encoded in ISO-8859. Change the encoding
    to UTF-8 unless it is necessary.
  - ./gdal-1.3.2-1/usr/share/gdal/seed_2d.dgn: Microstation
    ./gdal-1.3.2-1/usr/share/gdal/seed_3d.dgn: data
    Well, what are these files?

* Why the %makeinstall macro should not be used
  - Don't use %makeinstall

* Timestamps
  - These (gdal) package contains lots of text files, so keeping
    timestamps is preferable. Keep timestamps of those files (usually
    'make install' accepts the option 'INSTALL="install -c -p"'.

* File and Directory Ownership
  - Don't own the directory %python_sitearch itself.

2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match....
  - Specify the URL of the source. I cannot verify is the source is
    correct.

* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,  
  - /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_gdalmodule.la - should be removed.

* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
  - I have not yet checked if these packages functionally work well
    as desired. Please give me some simple examples if you can.


3. Other things I have noticed:
* Packaging issue:
  - in %prep stage:
    - %patch0 -p0: it is preferable that the suffix for original files is
      specified.
    - cd %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} is not necessary. The working
      directory at this stage is it.

  - in file entry:
    - Don't use %exclude unless there is no way to avoid 
      using %exclude (such as %exclude %{_bindir}/*.pyc)
      as it makes file entry somewhat complicate.
      For example, specify %{_bindir}, %{_mandir}/man1/
      entry so as not to use %exclude.
      Especially:
      - Explicitly REMOVE the files which are not included in any
        packages in %install stage (such as static archive)
     - I doubt that -devel package should have html directory.
       Owning files under html directory is sufficient. i.e:
       I suspect that %doc html should be %doc html/*


-- 
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.