[Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export

[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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-13 19:26 EST -------
I'd be happy to review this package. Here's a review: 

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
712b21f0354d4f890a02da4f8763768b  aqbanking-2.1.0.tar.gz
712b21f0354d4f890a02da4f8763768b  aqbanking-2.1.0.tar.gz.1
See below - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
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 function as described.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
See below - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version
3 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Minor: Could include COPYING file? Also, possibly:
AUTHORS Changelog NEWS README TODO

2. Possibly a missing BuildRequires:

checking for AccountNumberCheck_new in -lktoblzcheck... no
checking ktoblzcheck.h usability... no
checking ktoblzcheck.h presence... no
checking for ktoblzcheck.h... no

3. According to the COPYING file:
"The banking backend "AqYellowNet" is currently only available binary-only
because of a nondisclosure agreement."
So, should this code just be removed from the source package entirely?
I don't think it's being shipped/linked, but the .so is still in the source.

4. rpmlint says:

a)
E: aqbanking obsolete-not-provided aqhbci
E: aqbanking-devel obsolete-not-provided aqhbci-devel
E: qbanking obsolete-not-provided aqhbci-qt-tools

Suggest: As mentioned earlier in this review, these can probibly be
ignored if it's unlikely that these packages will ever come back at
a later time.

b)
E: aqbanking zero-length /usr/share/aqbanking/bankinfo/us/bic.idx
E: aqbanking-devel zero-length /usr/share/doc/aqbanking-devel-2.1.0/01-OVERVIEW

Suggest: Could possibly remove these? Or ping upstream about it.

c)
W: g2banking no-documentation
W: g2banking-devel no-documentation
W: kbanking no-documentation
W: kbanking-devel no-documentation
W: python-aqbanking no-documentation
W: qbanking no-documentation
W: qbanking-devel no-documentation

Suggest: ignore.

5. Minor: use dist tag?

6. This is an old version... upstream is at 2.2.8.
Any reason not to upgrade to that version?

7. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at the multilib conflicts and see if they
are solveable at this time?


-- 
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.