[Bug 438932] Review Request: libotf - Library for handling OpenType Font
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Mar 28 08:53:40 UTC 2008
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: libotf - Library for handling OpenType Font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438932
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2008-03-28 04:53 EST -------
Review:
+ package builds in mock.
koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=535524
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM.
+ source files match upstream.
017dc38925ffe33cc76d6d29c7757d36 libotf-0.9.7.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ libotf.pc files are present.
+ -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ ldconfig scriptlets are used.
+ package libotf-0.9.7-2.fc9->
Provides: libotf.so.0
Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libfreetype.so.6 libotf.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ package libotf-devel-0.9.7-2.fc9 ->
Requires: /bin/sh libotf.so.0
+ Not a GUI app.
SHOULD:
1) change license to LGPLv2+
2) add examples directory to %doc of -devel package.
3) Source URL should be
http://www.m17n.org/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list