Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: podofo - Tools and libraries to work with the PDF file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494862
Summary: Review Request: podofo - Tools and libraries to work with the PDF file format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dan@danny.cz QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo-0.7.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: oDoFo is a library to work with the PDF file format. The name comes from the first letter of PDF (Portable Document Format). A few tools to work with PDF files are already included in the PoDoFo package.
The PoDoFo library is a free, portable C++ library which includes classes to parse PDF files and modify their contents into memory. The changes can be written back to disk easily. The parser can also be used to extract information from a PDF file (for example the parser could be used in a PDF viewer). Besides parsing PoDoFo includes also very simple classes to create your own PDF files. All classes are documented so it is easy to start writing your own application using PoDoFo.
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=494862
--- Comment #1 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2009-04-08 09:13:23 EDT --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1285199
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=494862
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi Flag| |fedora-review?
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=494862
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-18 06:26:35 EDT --- rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK 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. NEEDSFIX - I don't think linking GPL/LGPL without exceptions to OpenSSL is okay due to OpenSSL's advertisement clauses.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK 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: 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. NEEDSFIX - LaTeX documentation exists, but I wasn't able to build it. HTML documentation is probably enough. - You need to add AUTHORS and TODO to %doc of all packages.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK 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. OK 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
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=494862
--- Comment #3 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2009-04-29 13:02:18 EDT --- The licensing issue was taken upstream, I am waiting for response.
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=494862
--- Comment #4 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2009-04-30 05:10:50 EDT --- Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo-0.7.0-2.fc11.src.rpm
ChangeLog: - removed dependency on openssl, upstream told me, that it is actually not required and when it will become required, they will add the exception clause to the license - added AUTHORS and TODO to the libs subpackage only, because it is always installed
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=494862
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-04-30 13:02:46 EDT --- Okay. The package has been
APPROVED.
PS. Your last changelog entry seems rather longish; maybe you should break it down to match the 80 character width limit?
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=494862
--- Comment #6 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2009-04-30 13:30:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Okay. The package has been
APPROVED.
Thanks for the review.
PS. Your last changelog entry seems rather longish; maybe you should break it down to match the 80 character width limit?
Sure, will do it.
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=494862
Dan Horák dan@danny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2009-04-30 13:31:51 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: podofo Short Description: Tools and libraries to work with the PDF file format Owners: sharkcz Branches: EL-5 F-10 F-11
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=494862
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #8 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2009-05-01 16:52:05 EDT --- CVS Done
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=494862
Dan Horák dan@danny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #9 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz 2009-05-02 02:58:11 EDT --- imported and built
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org