[Bug 461106] Review Request: libnotifymm - C++ interface for libnotify

[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=461106


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-20 17:19:49 EDT ---
Sorry nobody's looked at this in a while, but I just tried to build on current
rawhide (x86_64) and got:

notification.cc: In static member function 'static void  
  Notify::Notification_Class::class_init_function(void*, void*)':
notification.cc:192: error: invalid conversion from 'void
(*)(NotifyNotification*, 
  gint)' to 'void (*)(NotifyNotification*)'
notification.cc: In static member function 'static void 
  Notify::Notification_Class::closed_callback(NotifyNotification*, gint)':
notification.cc:238: error: too many arguments to function
notification.cc: In member function 'virtual void
  Notify::Notification::on_closed(gint)':
notification.cc:501: error: too many arguments to function

It does build fine on F-10, though, and there's no requirement for a package to
build on rawhide in order to be reviewed, although of course you'll want to get
it building relatively soon.

There are a pile of rpmlint unused-direct-shlib-dependency complaints, against
things like libgtk-x11 and libatk.  I don't think these are especially
problematic as those libraries will be in memory anyway, but they're trivially
fixed with the usual one-liner:
  sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool
after the %configure call.  With that, rpmlint is silent.

Note that the examples are GPL, not LGPL, but they aren't installed so there's
no issue.

Really I don't see anything which should block approval of this package.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  fea7f6f7e436d343a14ceed749b5e9ad78e34c0a62c7790520710de5236c402f  
   libnotifymm-0.6.1.tar.bz2
* 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 (F-10, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
O rpmlint has some fixable complaints which aren't blockers.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libnotifymm-0.6.1-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libnotifymm-1.0.so.7()(64bit)
   libnotifymm = 0.6.1-2.fc10
   libnotifymm(x86-64) = 0.6.1-2.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libnotify.so.1()(64bit)
   libnotifymm-1.0.so.7()(64bit)
   libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

  libnotifymm-devel-0.6.1-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   pkgconfig(libnotifymm-1.0) = 0.6.1
   libnotifymm-devel = 0.6.1-2.fc10
   libnotifymm-devel(x86-64) = 0.6.1-2.fc10
  =
   gtkmm24-devel
   libnotify-devel
   libnotifymm = 0.6.1-2.fc10
   libnotifymm-1.0.so.7()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

* shared libraries installed:
   ldconfig called properly.
   unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig are in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is present.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.