[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion program

[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=542740


Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #29 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-12-04 05:29:25 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> "The patch still needs a comment in the spec file." Not sure what you want
> there, but I added a note in the changelog.

I mean this
 # Patch makefile to build a shared library
 Patch: f2c-20090411.patch
Also, the patch backup would better reflect the patch by naming it .sharedlib
instead of .tim. 

- I think the devel package still has to require %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}. Are there any pieces of software that don't use f2c,
only the libraries..? Then again, I never have used f2c.

**

rpmlint output:
f2c.x86_64: E: devel-dependency f2c-devel
f2c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
f2c-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libf2c.so.0.22
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

These are all OK.

**

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

The package has been 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.