[Bug 508483] Review Request: ewl - Enlightenment Widget 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=508483





--- Comment #8 from Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de>  2009-07-05 19:45:06 EDT ---
Thanks for the new package. I've fully reviewed the package now. In general it
looks quite good, there are only some minor TODO items left:

* rpmlint: OK
rpmlint SPECS/ewl.spec SRPMS/ewl-0.5.2.042-7.fc10.src.rpm RPMS/i386/ewl-*

ewl.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libewl.so.1.0.0 exit at GLIBC_2.0
ewl-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

According to rpmlint's help the usage of exit in libraries is discouraged since
the calling application can not handle the error. However, in this case it
seems to be a design decisions of the enlightenment developers and other
libraries like ecore suffer from the same problem. This will not block the
review. But depending on your involvement with upstream it would probably be
worth to ask them for the reasons and/or explain them why its discouraged.

* naming: OK
- name matches upstream
- spec file name matches package name

* sources: OK
- md5sum: 385082d91eb112671a5c64af295da91d  ewl-0.5.2.042.tar.gz
- sources matches upstream
- Source0 tag ok
- spectool -g  works

* License: TODO
- License in spec file does not match the actual license (COPYING looks like a
variant of the MIT license)
- however, the included spec file mentiones BSD
- the enlightenment authors mentioned usually only BSD as the license of the
related projects
- I've asked fedora-legal for clarification and got a response that the
following license field should be used:
License: MIT with advertising
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00003.html
- license file packaged

* package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": TODO
- IMHO the usage of %if conditions should be omitted if not really needed
- even if this may be questionable or whether in this case it would be
meaningful, the packaging rules are indisputable here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files
please require pkgconfig unconditionally in the -devel package

* spec file written in English and legible: OK

* compilation: TODO
- supports parallel build
- RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used
- it would be better not to build the static libraries instead of deleting them
later, please add a "--disable-static" and remove the deleting of the *.a files
- builds in mock (F10)
- builds in koji:
F12: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454826
F11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454836
F10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454851

* BuildRequires: OK

* locales handling: OK (n/a)

* ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK

* package owns all directories that it creates: OK

* no files listed twice in %files: OK

* file permissions: OK
- %defattr used
- actual permissions in packages ok

* %clean section: OK

* macro usage: OK

* code vs. content: OK (only code)

* main package should not contain development related parts: TODO
/usr/lib/ewl/tests should be in -devel package

* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)

* header files in -devel subpackage: OK

* static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a)

* *.so link in -devel package: OK

* - devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK

* packages must not contain *.la files: OK

* GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a)

* packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK

* rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK

* all filenames UTF-8: OK

* functional test: OK
- ewl_config (which uses libewl) in main package (simple tool to configure the
themes etc.) works

* debuginfo sub-package: OK
- non-empty
- debuginfo file works together with gdb

-- 
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.