[Bug 403741] Review Request: OpenEXR_CTL - A simplified OpenEXR interface to CTL

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: OpenEXR_CTL - A simplified OpenEXR interface to CTL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=403741


rdieter at math.unl.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu  2008-01-16 09:45 EST -------
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=352922

$ rpmlint *.rpm
OpenEXR_CTL.x86_64: W: no-documentation
OpenEXR_CTL.x86_64: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD
OpenEXR_CTL.src: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD
OpenEXR_CTL-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
OpenEXR_CTL-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on OpenEXR_CTL
OpenEXR_CTL-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD
OpenEXR_CTL-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD
(these are all harmless/bogus).

upstream source matches:
035a68db3b1cc40fe99a7c4012d7f024  openexr_ctl-1.0.1.tar.gz

Most everything looks real good.  I have only a couple issues:

SHOULD: (re)consider using reautoconf instead of manually hacking libtool (to
remove rpath).

SHOULD: (re)evaluate if
BuildRequires: OpenEXR
Requires: OpenEXR
are really needed.  To my naive eyes, I would guess no, but maybe you have
reason to include these.  If so, please document that in the specfile.

SHOULD: work to upstream your patches (gcc43, pkgconfig).


But I don't consider these blockers, APPROVED.

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.