[Bug 226191] Merge Review: netpbm

Wed Feb 28 04:36:29 UTC 2007

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: netpbm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226191

------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-27 23:36 EST -------
First off, here's the rpmlint output; most of it seems pretty easy.

W: netpbm summary-ended-with-dot A library for handling different graphics file formats.
W: netpbm-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development tools for programs which will use the netpbm libraries.
W: netpbm-progs summary-ended-with-dot Tools for manipulating graphics files in netpbm supported formats.
   Trivial to fix.

W: netpbm invalid-license freeware
W: netpbm-debuginfo invalid-license freeware
W: netpbm-devel invalid-license freeware
W: netpbm-progs invalid-license freeware
   It's tough to summarise the multitude of netpbm licenses; I'm not sure if
  "freeware" is the proper thing to use or not.  I'll see what spot has to
  say.
  Newsflash: spot says no, but something like:
  License: Assorted licenses, see %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/copyright_summary 
  would be OK, assuming that that file gets added to the package.

E: netpbm obsolete-not-provided libgr
E: netpbm-devel obsolete-not-provided libgr-devel
E: netpbm-progs obsolete-not-provided libgr-progs
   I believe these should just go away.  No Fedora release has ever had
   libgr as far as I can tell.

E: netpbm-progs only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
   This is due to the four palm*.map files.  I wonder why these aren't under
   /usr/share since they shouldn't be arch-dependent.

W: netpbm-progs file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/pgmminkowski.1.gz
   A quick run through iconf should fix this up.

E: netpbm configure-without-libdir-spec
   This isn't a standard configure script, so this is OK

E: netpbm hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/lib*
   This is actually documented in the spec, and is OK.

So, the first fun question is: where do those tarballs come from?  Upstream
doesn't seem to produce any tarballs, so I guess the ones in the package are
made from svn export.  You should provide information on generating those
tarballs; see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#RevisionControl

I'm guessing something like:
  svn export https://netpbm.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/netpbm/release_number/10.35.0 netpbm-10.35
was used, except that the above produces something a bit different from what's
in netpbm-10.35.l1.tar.bz2.  And I've no idea where netpbmdoc-10.35.l1.tar.bz2
comes from.  The changelog indicates that these have bits removed due to
license issues, which is fine but it should be made clear, perhaps with a
simple script that does the work.

There seems to be some good license information in doc/copyright_summary that
really should be in the pacakge.

This doesn't seem to be the latest version (that seems to be either 10.35.23
or 10.37.03 depending on which branch you want to follow).  But I'm sure
rebasing right now isn't a great idea, although it would be nice to carry
fewer than 17 patches.

There's no need to test RPM_BUILD_ROOT against "/" in %clean and %install.

I tried a parallel make but it dies pretty quickly; this should be commented.

This package includes a static library, which it shouldn't without a good
reason.  (And if it really needs to, it needs to be in a -static subpackage.)

I'll attach a patch which fixes up the trivial rpmlint warnings, fixes
License:, nukes the obsoletes, runs iconv on the errant manpage, fixes
buildroot cleaning and drops the static library.  This leaves the
"only-non-binary-in-usr-lib" complaint as the only remaining one to worry
about.  I'm afraid I can't help with the upstream source bits.

Review:
X Can't check source against upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning 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.
X license text included in package.
O latest version is not being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (don't need to list perl explicitly)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  netpbm-10.35-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm
   libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit)
   netpbm = 10.35-11.fc7
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit)

  netpbm-devel-10.35-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm
   netpbm-devel = 10.35-11.fc7
  =
   libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit)
   netpbm = 10.35-11.fc7

  netpbm-progs-10.35-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm
   netpbm-progs = 10.35-11.fc7
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/perl
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
   libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit)
   libpng12.so.0()(64bit)
   libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)(64bit)
   libtiff.so.3()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   netpbm = 10.35-11.fc7
   perl >= 1:5.0
   perl(Cwd)
   perl(English)
   perl(Errno)
   perl(Fcntl)
   perl(File::Basename)
   perl(File::Spec)
   perl(File::Temp)
   perl(Getopt::Long)
   perl(strict)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are 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.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* no pkgconfig files.
X a static library is presesnt.
* no libtool .la droppings.

-- 
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.