[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-09-07 22:24 EST -------
Thanks for the prelim review Parag.

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (MIT)
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:
ea91f2fb4212a21d708aced277e6e85a  vigra1.4.0.tar.gz
ea91f2fb4212a21d708aced277e6e85a  vigra1.4.0.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - No rpmlint output.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.

Issues:

1. You might change your default attibute lines from:
%defattr(-, root, root)

to

%defattr(-, root, root,-)
(To keep directory permissions the same and not use umask)

2. This package appears to be able to use 'boost python'. Might
look into submitting boost and boost-python? 

Neither of those are blockers, you might fix the first before importing.

I am happy to APPROVE this package and sponsor you.
Note that your other submission was approved, so you should be able to 
import it as well. 

Continue from step 6 under (Get a Fedora Account):
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-
a89c07b5b8abe7748b6b39f0f89768d595234907

If you have any questions at all, feel free to email me
or catch me on irc in #fedora-extras (my nick is nirik).

-- 
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.