[Bug 453569] Review Request: libmirage - library to provide access to different image formats

[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: libmirage - library to provide access to different image formats


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453569





------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray at gmail.com  2008-07-11 16:23 EST -------
MUST Items: 

xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM
    + [rishi at ginger x86_64]$ rpmlint libmirage-1.0.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm 
      libmirage.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libmirage-1.0.0/ChangeLog
      libmirage.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libmirage-1.0.0/NEWS
      [rishi at ginger x86_64]$

OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + http://cdemu.sourceforge.net/pkg_libmirage.php looks to be a more
appropriate choice for URL.
    + Did you try to get the patch accepted upstream? It might affect SPARC too.
    + The versioned dependencies on pkgconfig, flex and glib2-devel are not
needed. According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires: "if the lowest
possible requirement is so old that nobody has a version older than that
installed on any target distribution release, there's no need to include the
version in the dependency at all. ... As a rule of thumb, if the version is not
required, don't add it just for fun."
    + No need to delete %{_libdir}/libmirage/*.a in %install since
--disable-static was passed to %configure.
    + Remove the empty ChangeLog and NEWS from %doc.

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines

xx - License field meets actual license
    + Should be GPLv2+ instead of LGPLv2+. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible

xx - sources match upstream sources
    + The gzipped tarball is no longer available at the given Source location.
You could use the bzipped tarball instead. However it looks like the bzipped
tarball has problems with parallel builds.

OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch not needed

xx - missing build dependencies
    + In order to build the documentation 'BuildRequires: gtk-doc' is needed.

OK - no locales
OK - %post and %postun invoke ldconfig
OK - package is not relocatable

xx - missing dependency on package that creates directory
    + The -devel subpackage should have 'Requires: gtk-doc' since it puts files
in a sub-directory within /usr/share/gtk-doc.

OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present

OK - macros used consistently
    + While %{name} is used in Source, libmirage is used in the rest of the
cases. You can consider using %{name} throughout the Spec file.

OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - header files in -devel
OK - no static libraries
OK - -devel has *.pc file and requires pkgconfig
OK - library files without suffix in -devel
OK - -devel requires base package
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed
OK - pkgconfig files in -devel
OK - no file dependencies

-- 
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.