[Bug 452921] Review Request: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack

[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: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452921


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  2008-06-27 00:14 EST -------
I guess those rpmlint complaints boil down to;
  No docs for the -devel package.
  NEWS is executable.
  A couple of source files are executable, which makes rpmlint complain about the 
   debuginfo package.
  These:
  libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
  libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
  libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0
  libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
aren't a serious issue but again it's a one line sed call to tweak libtool to
make them go away.

These are really trivial fixes and the unused-direct-shlib-dependency isn't
really a blocker, so I'll trust you to do what's best when you check in.

* source files match upstream:
   5b4e5a439543541a041f68f30c203180198e3ced2d6df488ab1390be6d383cfc  
   libzrtpcpp-1.3.0.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.
   The source files have a number of licenses (GPLv3+, GPLv2+ and what looks 
   like an MIT variant) but the final product seems to be GPLv3+. 
* 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 a few valid complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libzrtpcpp-1.3.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0()(64bit)
   libzrtpcpp = 1.3.0-1.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libccgnu2-1.6.so.0()(64bit)
   libccrtp1-1.6.so.0()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit)
   libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2)(64bit)
   libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
   libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0()(64bit)

  libzrtpcpp-devel-1.3.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libzrtpcpp-devel = 1.3.0-1.fc10
  =
   libzrtpcpp = 1.3.0-1.fc10
   libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I've no idea how to test this.
* shared libraries installed:
   unversioned .so links are in the -devel package.
   ldconfig is called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (pkgconfig).
* 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 -devel package.
* pkgconfig files in the -devel package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

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.