[Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2

[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: Merge Review: glib2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804


roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mclasen at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info  2007-02-03 12:16 EST -------
Passed
======
MUST: NVR is fine (assuming that renaming the package to glib breaks various things)
MUST: spec filename matches package name
MUST: license is fine (LGPL)
MUST: license field is fine
MUST: license in upstream tarball and marked as %doc
MUST: spec in American English, as far as I can tell
MUST: source matches upstream (both md5sum and sha1sum)
MUST: compiled and built binaries on FC6
MUST: no ExcludeArch
MUST: locales handled finely by %find_lang
MUST: ldconfig called in %post and %postun
MUST: no relocation
MUST: no duplicate files
MUST: file permissions fine
MUST: %clean section exists and fine
MUST: macros fine
MUST: contains code
MUST: no large docs
MUST: %doc files should not be needed to run
MUST: header files and static libs are in -devel
MUST: -devel require pkgconfig
MUST: *.so files are in -devel
MUST: -devel has fully versioned dependency
MUST: *.la file are removed
MUST: not a GUI app
MUST: does not seem to own dirs owned by others

Suggestions and improvements
============================
* rpmlint gives the following errors:

for glib2:
E: glib2 obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta
E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755
E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755

for glib2-devel:
E: glib2-devel obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta-devel
E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

I believe all should be fixed.

* The CVS contains several dropped patches that may need to be removed
(depending on how a merge would happen)

* The line BuildRequires: pkgconfig >= 0.8 doesn't make sense, specially since
rawhide has had a newer version since Feb 2002 and also that since it has had
that, it also had an epoch of 1. From the requirement from the configure.in
file, it should perhaps be pkgconfig >= 1:0.14. Also update the "Requires" in
-devel to 1:0.14.

* The viewpoint of the summary for the devel sub-package does not match the
viewpoint of the summary of the main package. They should be aligned.

* The Conflicts lines are probably wrong or unnecessary. Even if it's required,
the reason should be documented and the line probably be changed to "Requires".
See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts for details

* Static libraries are enabled, contrary to the Packaging Guidelines. I guess
the reason should be documented (anaconda?).

* The make line in %build does not have %{?_smp_mflags}.

* %check is empty for ppc and ppc64. The reason should perhaps be documented.

* %defattr line should perhaps have an extra dash at the end:
"%defattr(-,root,root,-)"

* Package places files in /etc/profile.d (which is not in FHS), without owning
the directory itself or having a Requires on a package that does.

* May need to mark %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* as %doc

Review TODO
===========
* Thorough consideration of packaging guidelines (a MUST item)
* Theoretically, all dependenies may not be listed (a MUST item), as I did not
do a Rawhide mock build.


-- 
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.