[Bug 226191] Merge Review: netpbm
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Mar 29 15:27:59 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
bugzilla at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |medium
jnovy at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo? |
------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-03-29 11:27 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> 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.
Fixed.
> 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.
I added link to COPYRIGHT.PATENT which is there.
> 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.
Removed.
> 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.
These files doesn't seem to be required to let the palmtopnm function properly,
so I removed them.
> W: netpbm-progs file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/pgmminkowski.1.gz
> A quick run through iconf should fix this up.
iconv is not needed here as the only bad character causing this is 0xa0 present
in the literature citation. I removed it as it's not needed.
> 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.
Added.
> 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.
The 10.35 code tarball is the last published netpbm tarball before the upstream
decided to change a release policy. The tarball comes with hpcd and jpeg2000
support removed, so it's not the original one. The netpbmdoc tarball is
generated by my scripts from the html pages by makeman. This is the suggested
way how to get netpbm man pages by upstream.
> 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.)
Yes, let's get rid of it.
> 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.
Thanks, applied most of your fixes.
> 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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list