[Bug 222475] Review Request: sofia-sip - Sofia SIP User-Agent library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 30 00:27:21 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: Review Request: sofia-sip - Sofia SIP User-Agent library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222475
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |
nThis| |
Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-06-29 20:27 EST -------
Yep, that gets rid of them. Now we're down to these:
W: sofia-sip-glib no-documentation
W: sofia-sip unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua.so.0.5.0
/lib64/libdl.so.2
W: sofia-sip unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua.so.0.5.0
/lib64/libz.so.1
W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libssl.so.6
W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.6
W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1
W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
All of which are OK.
It might be nice to define SIP in your %description.
What are the .h.in files for? You include them explicitly so I assume they must
be necessary.
I really don't see anything at this point which should hold this up any longer.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
23c7e50b5c68bce65b80ca30e2dd7797e8ca7d4627dca9513a9a2d3f459ed445
sofia-sip-1.12.6.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
sofia-sip-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit)
sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit)
libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.6()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
sofia-sip-devel-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
sofia-sip-devel = 1.12.6-3.fc8
=
/usr/bin/env
libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig
sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8
sofia-sip-glib-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit)
sofia-sip-glib = 1.12.6-3.fc8
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit)
libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.6()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8
sofia-sip-glib-devel-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
sofia-sip-glib-devel = 1.12.6-3.fc8
=
libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit)
pkgconfig
sofia-sip-devel = 1.12.6-3.fc8
sofia-sip-glib = 1.12.6-3.fc8
sofia-sip-utils-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
sofia-sip-utils = 1.12.6-3.fc8
=
libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit)
libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.6()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All 14 tests passed
* ldconfig is called as appropriate for the two packages which install shared
libs. Unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackages.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig calls)
* 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 subpackages.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel packages, which have the proper pkgconfig
dependencies.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
APPROVED
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list