[Bug 249125] Review Request: exempi - Library for easy parsing of XMP metadata

[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: exempi -  Library for easy parsing of XMP metadata


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249125


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-07-29 13:44 EST -------
I have to admit that I have no idea what this package does, and no way to test
it as it's a library that has no test suite.  But it's a simple and clean
package, so...

rpmlint says:
W: exempi unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexempi.so.2.3.0 
    /lib64/libm.so.6
  It links against libm (which seems to be the default for autoconf packages) 
  but doesn't call any functions from it.  I don't see this as a really big 
  deal.

W: exempi-devel no-documentation
  Not a problem.  I guess it would be nice if there were some programming 
  information included, but it's not your responsibility to produce it.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   f1783d5a85ec81cb3a7be3ce24fd2178e1acbc5229c719c1496160d62f57a104  
   exempi-1.99.3.tar.gz
* 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 is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  exempi-1.99.3-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
   libexempi.so.2()(64bit)
   exempi = 1.99.3-1.fc8
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libexempi.so.2()(64bit)
   libexpat.so.0()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

  exempi-devel-1.99.3-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
   exempi-devel = 1.99.3-1.fc8
  =
   exempi = 1.99.3-1.fc8
   libexempi.so.2()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig is called as necessary and unversioned .so 
   files are in the -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* pkgconfig file is in the -devel subpackage; pkgconfig dependency is there.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

-- 
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.