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: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 - compatability package for libosip2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215185
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-11 23:08 EST ------- Wanting to help get the broken package report down some, here's a review. ;)
See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 40ee3ec89030f0d6dfdb2cf6100e6685 libosip2-2.2.2.tar.gz 40ee3ec89030f0d6dfdb2cf6100e6685 libosip2-2.2.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun See below - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag
Issues:
1. Your naming doesn't seem right to me...
compat-libosip2-2.2.2-2.2.2-5 should be just compat-libosip2-2.2.2-5
right? ie, the 2.2.2 in the Name should be removed.
2. Shouldn't you Provides: libosip2 = %{version}-%{release}
instead of the Conflicts? Then this version will replace the older libosip2 packages and provide the same things for things like linphone?
3. The devel subpackage has a .pc file, so it should Requires: pkgconfig
4. rpmlint says:
W: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 summary-not-capitalized oSIP is an implementation of SIP
Can be ignored.
W: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.2.2-4 2.2.2-5.fc7
Missing changelog entry for changes to the compat package?
E: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 obsolete-not-provided libosip2
See issue #2?
W: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 summary-not-capitalized oSIP is an implementation of SIP E: compat-libosip2-2.2.2-devel obsolete-not-provided libosip2-devel
Same thing with the -devel subpackage...