[Bug 525005] Review Request: libmxp - MUD eXtension protocol 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=525005


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-09-23 02:24:09 EDT ---
You have "GPLv2" for the license but all of the source files seem to me to
refer to the LGPL and include the "or (at your option) any  later version"
language.  Can you indicate which files are under the GPL, or where the version
is restricted to version 2 only?  Otherwise I'd say the license tag should be
"LGPLv2+".

Generally it's a good idea to name patches for their function; in this case I
guess that's a gcc44 compilation fix.  Using "foo-fedora.patch" for a patch in
Fedora is stating the obvious.  Have you sent this patch upstream?  Is there an
upstream bug number you can refer to?  See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PatchUpstreamStatus for the guidelines
on this.

You must include the license file(s) in the main package (which coincidentally
will make the no-documentation rpmlint complaint go away).  There is no need to
also include them in the devel package.

Obscuring your email address in the changelog is pointless.  Your choice, of
course, but still pointless.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                   
   54934b7db14683f5e9499bc3ac023c5e3bca443571963c1683e04fa742a27c7a
   libmxp-0.2.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field doesn't match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text included upstream, but not included in the main package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint (changelog).
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libmxp.so.0()(64bit)
   libmxp = 0.2.2-2.fc12
   libmxp(x86-64) = 0.2.2-2.fc12
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libmxp.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

  libmxp-devel-0.2.2-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   libmxp-devel = 0.2.2-2.fc12
   libmxp-devel(x86-64) = 0.2.2-2.fc12
  =
   libmxp = 0.2.2-2.fc12
   libmxp.so.0()(64bit)

* shared libraries are installed; ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.