[Bug 222347] Review Request: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jun 8 20:50:48 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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-06-08 16:50 EST -------
rpmlint has some complaints:

This just looks like a typo in the changelog:
   W: g-wrap incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.9.6-10 1.9.6-9

I'm not really sure about these:
   W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
    /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-standard.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
   W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
    /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0
   W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
    /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
I don't think they're especially problematic and I guess it's possible that
they're necessary.

I admit I find it odd to see /usr/lib64/g-wrap/include/ffi.h:
   E: g-wrap-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Why not /usr/share/g-wrap, or with the rest of the installed headers in
/usr/include/g-wrap?

Seems to me that the license is LGPL, not GPL.  The libffi license seems to be
MIT but that's compatible and doesn't change the overall license of the package.

I note that there is a test suite, but some notes about it being disabled on
x86_64.  I tried a quick "make check" on i386 rawhide and all the tests failed
without attempting to actually test anything, so I must be missing something.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   ddb0e31d40581402d6d7045cce7cdc79e0bc0627831a4b12012f45703446d311  
   g-wrap-1.9.6.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.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
O latest version is 1.9.8, but there are issues preventing its use.
* 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:
  g-wrap-1.9.6-9.x86_64.rpm
   libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit)
   libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit)
   libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit)
   libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit)
   g-wrap = 1.9.6-9
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   guile
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libguile.so.17()(64bit)
   libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit)
   libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit)
   libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit)
   libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit)
   libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
   libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)

  g-wrap-devel-1.9.6-9.x86_64.rpm
   g-wrap-devel = 1.9.6-9
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/install-info
   g-wrap = 1.9.6
   guile-devel
   libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit)
   libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit)
   libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit)
   libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

* %check is not present.  Test suite doesn't seem to do much.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig called as appropriate.
* unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.
* 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, install-info).
* 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.
* a pkgconfig file is present in -devel; 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list