[Bug 693677] New: Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693677

Summary: Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora
      Story Points: ---

Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/avl.spec
SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/avl-0.3.5-1.fc15.src.rpm
Description:
This library consists of a set of functions to manipulate AVL trees. AVL
trees are very efficient balanced binary trees, similar to red-black
trees. The functions in this library can handle any kind of payload and
search key type.

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

--- Comment #1 from Matej Cepl  2011-04-05 06:37:01 EDT ---
Build in koji as http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2974546

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

Marcela Mašláňová  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

--- Comment #2 from Marcela Mašláňová  2011-04-05 07:18:53 EDT ---
- rpmlint OK
rpmlint avl-*
avl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
avl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
avl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
- license field must match actual license ?
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK

License: you are providing license files with LGPLv3, but it's licensed as
LGPLv2.

Defining buildroot, rm -rf and clean section are not necessary for Fedora.

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

--- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl  2011-04-05 11:06:47 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> rpmlint OK
>
> rpmlint avl-*
> avl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
> avl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL

No, it isn't ... “AVL tree manipulation library”, AVL here describes the type
of trees managed, not the name of the package.
> avl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

Well, there just isn't any documentation available for -devel. The only
non-code files are README, and COPYING, which are included in the main package.
> package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
> license field must match actual license ?
>
> License: you are providing license files with LGPLv3, but it's licensed as
> LGPLv2.

Looks like LGPLv2 to me.
> Defining buildroot, rm -rf and clean section are not necessary for Fedora.

Yes, but this is supposed to be build on RHEL as well (eventually for
forked-daapd server). I am lazy, I would love to have one spec for both.

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

Marcela Mašláňová  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Marcela Mašláňová  2011-04-05 11:19:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > rpmlint OK
> >
> > rpmlint avl-*
> > avl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
> > avl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL

Ok.
> No, it isn't ... “AVL tree manipulation library”, AVL here describes the type
> of trees managed, not the name of the package.
> > avl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
>
> Well, there just isn't any documentation available for -devel. The only
> non-code files are README, and COPYING, which are included in the main package.
> > package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
> > license field must match actual license ?
> >
> > License: you are providing license files with LGPLv3, but it's licensed as
> > LGPLv2.
>
> Looks like LGPLv2 to me.

In updated version are not sources with definition of LGPLv3, so it's okay now.
> > Defining buildroot, rm -rf and clean section are not necessary for Fedora.
>
> Yes, but this is supposed to be build on RHEL as well (eventually for
> forked-daapd server). I am lazy, I would love to have one spec for both.

Ok.

APPROVED

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

Matej Cepl  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #5 from Matej Cepl  2011-04-05 12:16:20 EDT ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: avl
Short Description: AVL tree manipulation library
Owners: mcepl
Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6
InitialCC:

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-04-05 13:55:57 EDT ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 693677] Review Request: avl - AVL tree manipulation library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=693677

Matej Cepl  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
        Last Closed|                            |2011-06-13 10:21:22