[Bug 251828] Review Request: quesa - OSS implementation of QuickDraw 3D

[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: quesa - OSS implementation of QuickDraw 3D


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251828


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-01-18 23:47 EST -------
Odd, mow I'm seeing more spurious-executable-perm complaints on the following files:

/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Writers/3DMF/E3FFW_3DMFBin_Register.c
/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Readers/3DMF/E3FFR_3DMF_Bin.h
/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Writers/3DMF/E3FFW_3DMFBin_Geometry.c
/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Writers/3DMF/E3FFW_3DMFBin_Writer.c
/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Readers/3DMF/E3FFR_3DMF.h
/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/E3IOFileFormat.c
/usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/E3IOFileFormat.h

I just change the chmod line you had in %prep to
  find Source/FileFormats -name '*.[ch]' -exec chmod a-x {} \;
and those complaints all go away, leaving just
  quesa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is not a problem.

Since I only see one issue and the fix is trivial, I'll approve this package
and you can fix it up when you check in.

* source files match upstream:
   3d14ed7deabc8245551bff72995bdbbcfc29a9402bdef6a2548461ae4ddc2a91  
   quesa-1.8.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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has some valid complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  quesa-1.8-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   libquesa.so.0()(64bit)
   quesa = 1.8-1.fc9
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libGL.so.1()(64bit)
   libGLU.so.1()(64bit)
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libquesa.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

  quesa-devel-1.8-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   quesa-devel = 1.8-1.fc9
  =
   libquesa.so.0()(64bit)
   quesa = 1.8-1.fc9

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I have no way to test this
   package.
* shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly and unversioned .so
   files are in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X file permissions are appropriate (executable source files)
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the debug package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED; just fix up those source file permissions.


-- 
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.