[Bug 246525] Review Request: mini - A high-performance terrain rendering library

[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: mini - A high-performance terrain rendering library
Alias: mini

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246525


kwizart at gmail.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com  2007-07-02 21:46 EST -------

Review for release 1:
* RPM name:
 Well i would suggest to uses libMini as this a library only package and
upstream (are you upstream ?) seems to call it libMini whereas archive name is
only MINI. We usually should uses archive name indeed (which is MINI in this
example)... Is it subject to change ?

* Source MINI-8.1.zip is the same as upstream (for stable)
Uses %{version} for the Source0 version as this is the same as the package.
Also, using a dist tag is hightly encouraged for the release field
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag

* From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). This is bring by other dependencies at this
time, but i wonder if they are required ? (Mini.pc suggest that programs that
links against it links also to them)

* Mini.pc includes /usr/X11/include whereas this directory doesn't exist (
usually it is /usr/include or /usr/include/X11 )

* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of mini src.rpm
W: mini mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 27, tab: line 1)
* rpmlint of mini looks OK
* rpmlint of mini-debuginfo looks OK
* File list of mini-devel looks OK
* File list of mini looks OK
* File list of mini-debuginfo looks OK
* OK at install/uninstall (no runtime test for now)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
  (wiki: Packaging/Guidelines#parallelmake)
Ok - comments are here - good (whereas I didn't experience it)
* rpmlint mini on installed files:
rpmlint mini
W: mini no-documentation
W: mini unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libMini.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libcurl.so.3
W: mini unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libMini.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libglut.so.3
You should report theses upstream
* The package should contain the text of the license 
(license seems to be LGPL as your spec file suggest, but uses have to find the
full license text in writting in the %doc directory)
* You can uses --disable-static instead of --enable-static=no which works also
anyway, but this first one is the usual command...

---

Is it possible to have the license bundled ?
What do you think about the package name ? 
I would suggest MINI (archive name ) or libMini (name on the website)
The second choice seems better from cosmectic view.
Have you submitted your patch upstream ?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.