[Bug 460959] Review Request: libkml - A KML library written in C++ with bindings to other languagues

[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=460959





--- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-01-05 16:43:36 EDT ---
REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent:

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/downloaded/libkml-*
libkml-devel.ppc: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ 

I think this should be ignored. However I didn't checked whether I can build
samples provided. %{__docdir}/libkml-devel-0.4.0/examples ). Another one thing
I found questionable is the existence of "third_party" directory in
%{__includedir} - we shouldn't allow user to build something against our
version of boost.

+ The package is be 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.
+ 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 matching the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum libkml-0.4.0.tar.gz*
c6317783cec04f2e2dd992b0dd95c028  libkml-0.4.0.tar.gz
c6317783cec04f2e2dd992b0dd95c028  libkml-0.4.0.tar.gz.srpm
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1033826

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to handle locales
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT .
+ The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of
Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ No large documentation files
+ Everithing, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. 
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files
+ The library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ devel packages 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+  All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, please, resolve issue with third party libraries (I suspect that it even
builds against shipped boost) and I'll continue.

-- 
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.