[Bug 473590] Review Request: libiphone - A library for connecting to Apple iPhone and iPod touch

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473590


Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |notting at redhat.com




--- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com>  2008-12-01 15:43:12 EDT ---
MUST items:
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK
- Spec file matches base package name. - OK
- Spec has consistent macro usage. - OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. - ***

Summary should probably drop the leading 'A'.

You appear to be packaging a git snapshot. (In fact, you're including the
entire .git directory in the tarball, which isn't really needed.) 

Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to handle
this, and how to version the package.

- License  - LGPLv2+ - OK
- License field in spec matches - ***

"GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+"

I don't actually see any GPLv2+ code in the tarball.

- License file included in package - OK
- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible. - OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum: - ***

See above re: snapshot packaging.

- Package needs ExcludeArch - Possibly pointless on s390, but don't really need
to exclude it - OK
- BuildRequires correct  - OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
- 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
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - 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. - N/A

- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - Tested x86_64 (w/mock)
- 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. - OK
- No rpmlint output.

libiphone-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

Barring building the docs with doxygen, nothing to add here.

- final provides and requires are sane:

Looks good.

SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock. - OK
- Should function as described. - No hardware, can't test
- Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. -
OK
- Should have dist tag - OK
- Should package latest version - ***

See above re: source control pulls.

So, for approval:
- fix %{version} and source control URL to specify what revision you're pulling
- fix License: tag
- maybe tweak summary

If this is going to change ABI frequently without changing soname, a warning in
the -devel package might be nice. Then again, if nothing other than the FUSE
client is going to use the library, it may not be relevant.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.