[Bug 511895] Review Request: clutter-imcontext - IMContext Framework Library for Clutter

[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=511895





--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-07-19 08:15:27 EDT ---
> Here is my review for this package. Most are minor things but there is a
> license issue.

Thanks

> * Package fails to build on F-11:
>   checking for CLUTTER... configure: error: Package requirements (glib-2.0 
>   clutter-0.9 >= 0.9.3) were not met:
>   No package 'clutter-0.9' found
> 
> I think this BR on clutter-devel should contain the explicit version
> requirement.
> Is this package for rawhide only?

Yes. It requires the newer clutter. There was discusson on whether to put a
clutter09 package in F11 to allow for testing of various things that need it
but it was decided the amount of work required wasn't worth it. I've added an
explicit version requirement 

> ! All relevant doc files should be packaged. It would be good to include the
> AUTHORS and ChangeLog files in %doc

Added.

> * The files clutter-imtext.{c,h} are LGPLv3. The rest is LGPLv2. AFAIK These
> are incompatible. This needs to be clarified by upstream.

I've emailed upstream and if necessary will follow up with a clarification from
legal.
http://lists.moblin.org/pipermail/dev/2009-July/005515.html

> ! BR's automake, autoconf are unnecessary since these will always be dragged in
> by libtool. Similarly, BR's glib2-devel, pkgconfig will be dragged in by
> clutter-devel. However, it is not a blocker to keep them.

Noted.

> * It looks like the devel package should require clutter-devel. There are other
> dependencies as well such as glib2-devel, pango-devel. But these will be
> dragged in by clutter-devel.

Added.

> ! The %{name} macro could be used more consistently.

>From looking I couldn't see exactly what you meant by this. Further details
would be great.

> ? Do we need to package the Makefile* stuff in %doc? One last suggestion: You
> could use "%doc doc/*" instead of just "%doc doc/" to avoid an extra
> subdirectory.  

I'll look at why the Makefiles are there and if there's specific docs that can
be generated will look at getting that done during the build.

SPEC same as before. New SRPM:
http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/clutter-imcontext-0.1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm

-- 
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.