[Bug 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> ---
Looks good to me. Here is my formal 

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are either false positives or
informative only:

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-mysql-*
libodb-mysql.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run
time, run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will
definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6)
will require explicit "Requires: pkgconfig"
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.