[Bug 195647] Review Request: redland

[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: redland


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-09 01:29 EST -------
Sorry for the delay in reviewing this... 

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
3ee58cbf5486c97ef3bc0c4368a344cc  redland-1.0.4.tar.gz
3ee58cbf5486c97ef3bc0c4368a344cc  redland-1.0.4.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. You have the License as: "LGPL or Apache License 2.0", but it
apparently also is optionally licensed under the GPL,
so you should add that option. 

2. -devel package has a .pc file, so shouldn't it
Requires: pkgconfig

3. rpmlint our little friend says:
W: redland invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0
W: redland invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0
W: redland-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0
W: redland-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0

Can be ignored I think.

4. You aren't packaging the newest version, but thats due to
the version of rasqal available. Is there a bug filed for updating
that?

5. The package dumps 18 files into /usr/include/ Perhaps it could be
changed to put them in a /usr/include/redland/ instead? (And then
the .pc file would need to be adjusted to include the right -I/usr/include/redland.

-- 
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.