[Bug 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714





--- Comment #34 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray at gmail.com>  2008-10-15 15:32:22 EDT ---
MUST Items: 

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

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + The Source0 tag should have a valid URL pointing to the upstream release
      tarball. This is an important requirement. In case upstream does not
      provide any such tarball, the Spec should have a comment above the
      Source0 tag describing how the sources were obtained to create the
      package. See:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
    + Could you throw some light on why it is a problem to build the language
      bindings on Fedora? Is it because of the ruby-rpm breakage in Rawhide?
    + Please do not strip the test-suite, if it is not absolutely necessary.
      Laziness arising out of needing to upload the SRPM several times is not
      a valid reason. :-)
    + It is not really necessary to create %{_target_platform}. See:
      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake#Specfile_Usage
    + To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
    + Please add a comment in the Spec to document the rationale for shipping
      static libraries.
    + You could consider shipping the other files in the doc/ sub-directory as
      %doc. However shipping doc/PLANNING and doc/README in both the main
      package and the -devel sub-package is redundant.

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - License field meets actual license
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible

?? - sources might not match upstream sources
    + As noted earlier, please document how the sources were obtained. Place a
      comment above the Source0 tag for this.

xx - package does not build successfully
    + sat-solver-no-bindings.patch does not apply cleanly and causes a build
      failure in Rawhide, which uses '/usr/bin/patch -s -p0 --fuzz=0'. See:
      http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=882707&name=build.log

?? - ExcludeArch not needed

?? - missing build dependencies
    + Can not verify because package fails to build.

OK - no locales

xx - %post and %postun should not invoke ldconfig
    + Since shared libraries are not being shipped, invocation of
      /sbin/ldconfig is not needed and should be removed.

OK - package is not relocatable
OK - missing dependency on package that creates directory
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
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 - static libraries in -static package
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no shared library files

OK - -devel does not require base package
    + Only static libraries are provided as part of the -devel or -static
      package. Base package consists of only executables.

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

xx - package does not build in mock successfully
    + As noted above, package fails to build in Rawhide.

?? - package builds on all supported architectures

?? - package functions as expected
    + Other components of the Zypper stack are needed to verify functionality.

xx - scriptlets are not sane
    + As noted above, scriptlets are not needed and should be removed.

OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed
    + -devel provides a -static package.

OK - no pkgconfig files
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.