[Bug 246287] Review Request: libxcb - C language binding to the X11 protocol
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jul 3 03:53:14 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: libxcb - C language binding to the X11 protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246287
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-07-02 23:53 EST -------
Now that xcb-proto is done, I can take a look at this.
It builds fine and rpmlint only says
W: libxcb-devel no-documentation
which is not an issue.
Actually I'm not sure about the point of the -doc package; it has only three
files which are already in the main package.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
19d6b2ac380fd3e613a3730e791f197f186f940bffec97f8a4f9443bb727d11d
libxcb-1.0.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
libxcb-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
libxcb = 1.0-1.fc8
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libXau.so.6()(64bit)
libXdmcp.so.6()(64bit)
libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
libxcb-devel-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libxcb-devel = 1.0-1.fc8
=
libxcb = 1.0-1.fc8
libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit)
libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
pkgconfig
libxcb-doc-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libxcb-doc = 1.0-1.fc8
=
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared present; ldconfig called as necessary. Unversioned .so files are in
the -debug package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
X documentation files are duplicated in -doc package.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is there.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list