[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 24 19:21:15 UTC 2007


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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039


pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2007-02-24 14:21 EST -------
in main package %files, there is no need of * in
%exclude %{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so*

Otherwise
* rpmlint output ignorable
W: ogdi-odbc no-documentation
W: ogdi-tcl no-documentation
* follow packaging and naming guidelines
* license acceptable, with a license file summarizing the conditions 
  for the source files
* sane provides (I consider those .so provides bogus, but that's common)
Provides: libadrg.so libdtcanada.so libdted.so libdtusa.so libgdal.so
libogdi.so.3 libremote.so librpf.so libskeleton.so libvrf.so
Provides: liblodbc.so
Provides: libecs_tcl.so
* match upstream:
193da3f154985d37bb5aaa886e78f650  ogdi-3.2.0.beta1.tar.gz
029a8cdcd36bee73df92196ee769040e  ogdi.pdf
* library packaged rightly (no .la, devel stuff in -devel, right 
  Requires for -devel)
* %files section right

APPROVED


The source file timestamps are not the same than what I get with
spectool -g. I get

Feb 24 18:48 ogdi-3.2.0.beta1.tar.gz
Nov  3  2000 ogdi.pdf

while in the SRPM, there is
Feb 24 19:00 ../SOURCES/ogdi-3.2.0.beta1.tar.gz
Nov 27  2003 ../SOURCES/ogdi.pdf



Do you need to be sponsored?

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list