[Bug 494693] Review Request: gloox - A rock-solid, full-featured Jabber/XMPP client library

[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=494693





--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-04-09 13:59:00 EDT ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is almost silent:

[petro at Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint gloox-*
gloox-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco ppc]$

[petro at Sulaco SRPMS]$ rpmlint gloox-*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SRPMS]

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
(GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. However I failed to reproduce exact tarball using
instructions in comments (it's a normal situation when creating tarball from
SCM directly). 

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ ll gloox-1.0-SVNr4003.tar.bz2*
-rw-rw-r-- 1 petro petro 644824 Апр  9 21:41 gloox-1.0-SVNr4003.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 petro petro 621743 Апр  5 12:57
gloox-1.0-SVNr4003.tar.bz2.from_srpm
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

I suggest you to consider rebasing patches against latest devel tarball (
http://camaya.net/download/gloox-1.0-beta8.tar.bz2 ) instead of fetching whole
svn tree.

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ No extremely large documentation files
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ The sub-package containing pkgconfig(.pc) files has 'Requires: pkgconfig'
directive.
+ The library file that ends in .so (without suffix) is placed in a -devel
package.
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, finally, please consider using
http://camaya.net/download/gloox-1.0-beta8.tar.bz2 instead of svn tree (just
for simplifying the process of verifying sources) or write few words explaining
why it's necessary to use trunk and I'll approve this package.

-- 
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.