[Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol

[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=493432


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

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




--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-04-01 15:11:17 EDT ---
Is there really no upstream URL?  You probably want to remove the commented URL
tag as it seems unrelated.    Unfortunately without an upstream site I don't
have a clue as to how you find new version of the source.  You also get a few
rpmlint complaints:

  libgdata.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
  libgdata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
  libgdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
which are OK as long as there really isn't some upstream site to point to.

Also:
  libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0
  libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
  libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
  libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
The library is linked against a few things that are not really necessary.  This
should cause any real problems as those will always be loaded anyway.

I don't see where the license is LGPLv2+.  The source looks to me as if it's
GPLv3+, which might have implications for your planned usage.  Unpack the
source and grep for 'of the License'.  It's true that for whatever bizarre
reason, upstream included version 2 of the actual LGPL text, but that has no
bearing on the actual license that's on the code.  Can you query upstream about
this?

As far as I can tell, there is a test suite but it makes calls out to network
services which must already be set up, so there's no way it could be run during
the build process.

So really the only must-fix blocker issue I see is the license tag.


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   bb19c90e8bb2f1ead0d7f407ba15e2f6b6d8a2a355b263ca9338bf68846a5b72  
   libgdata-0.1.0.tar.bz2
* 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.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
? 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.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
   libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
   libgdata(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
   libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
   libxml2.so.2()(64bit)

  libgdata-devel-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   pkgconfig(libgdata) = 0.1.0
   libgdata-devel = 0.1.0-1.fc11
   libgdata-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
  =
   /usr/bin/pkg-config
   gtk-doc
   libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
   libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
   pkgconfig
   pkgconfig(libsoup-2.4)
   pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)

* %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time.
* shared libraries installed:
  ldconfig is called properly.
  unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named 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 -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.