[Bug 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri May 15 15:43:51 UTC 2009


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=225988





--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-05-15 11:43:49 EDT ---
- Source URL should be
 Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libavc1394/libavc1394-%{version}.tar.gz

- Patch should be patch0

- Use
 BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

- Devel package needs to
 Requires: pkgconfig

- You can probably use
 %configure --disable-static
to prevent shared library from being built, then you don't have to remove it.

- What is newer libtool needed for? Autoreconf'ing is quite a brutal operation.

**

rpmlint output:
libavc1394.src: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libavc1394_0
libavc1394.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided librpm1394_0
libavc1394-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/libavc1394-0.5.3/test/dvcont.c
libavc1394-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

- Url should be
 URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libavc1394/

- Remove executable permission in %setup phase.

- Other warnings can be ignored.

**

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.
NEEDSWORK
- Library is under LGPLv2+, files under test/ are under GPLv2+. Change License:
field to GPLv2+.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK
- After fixing source URL is 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. NEEDSWORK
- Use INSTALL="install -p" as argument to make install to preserve time stamps.

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. OK

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add AUTHORS and TODO to %doc.

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'.
NEEDSWORK
- Add Requires: pkgconfig to devel.

MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
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. OK
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

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list