[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Mar 1 01:42:03 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added
------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-28 20:42 EST -------
First of all, it would have been nice if the URL of spec from comment #7 would
have been the modified one.
Second, I think that the Description tag in -devel should match the one from the
main package. You have modified only the main one...
As a comment prior to the review: examining the build log and then the sources,
I have noticed that %configure looks for doxygen and some doxygen related
scripts seem to exist in the admin directory. Unfortunately my experience with
doxygen is limited to installing it via yum. Just adding doxygen as BR makes
configure pick it, but nothing seems to be changed afterwards: nothing is built
in the admin directory andthe build log has some failures which _seem_ to look
like missing QT requirements. Explicitely requiring qt-devel does not help
either and unfortunately the machine where I have done all the tests just
suffered yet another kernel crash. OTOH the admin folder does not seem to
contain anything else but a bunch of scripts so I guess there is no need to
struggle with it (could be a leftover from a more comprehensive package from
which this tar has been separated). If I am wrong here, I would appreciate if
someone would correct me.
- rpmlint checks do not return anything on the source and binary rpm. the -devel
W: libkexiv2-devel no-documentation
which I guess that can be ignored. The doc is in the main package.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream, is the latest available version, sha1sum
- package compiles on devel (x86_64 and i386)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- not a GUI so no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files (correctly removed in %install)
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel correctly requires pkgconfig
- separation of libs between main and devel packages respects versioning (once
again, I kindly ask someone more experienced to verify and correct me if I am wrong)
- successfully builds in mock for fc6 and devel, i386 and x86_64
warning: I cannot verify if the libs are actually working, nothing to test them
- no scriptlets except usage of ldconfig which is OK
- pkgconfig(.pc) files are in -devel
- devel requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
What I would like to see
- including of AUTHORS, ChangeLog and maybe even the RELEASE.rev files as %doc
- the same Description in -devel as in main
Both are minor and non blockers, they can be fixed before uploading to cvs.
>From my point of view the package is OK (minus the minor caveats I have
mentioned ). However I kindly ask someone more experienced to have a second
look, therefore I will leave this bug in REVIEW state for another day or two.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the package-review