[Bug 226195] Merge Review: newt

[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: Merge Review: newt


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226195





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-28 21:42 EST -------
First off, does newt have an upstream?  Or is Red Hat the upstream?  If there
is an upstream, a URL tag would be good if possible, and either a full URL in
the Source tag, or some instruction on making the tarball from CVS or
whatever is needed.

Some rpmlint complaints:

W: newt summary-ended-with-dot A development library for text mode user
interfaces.
W: newt-devel summary-ended-with-dot Newt windowing toolkit development files.
   Trivial fixes.

E: newt tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: newt non-utf8-spec-file newt.spec
   This is due to Trond's name; in the changelog; a quick pass through iconv
   fixes things.

W: newt no-url-tag
   Depends on whether there's an upstream to link to.

E: newt configure-without-libdir-spec
   rpmlint is confused by the commented out "./configure" line.

W: newt macro-in-%changelog release
W: newt macro-in-%changelog version

E: newt script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/snack.py
   This is executable; if the user is supposed to run it, it should have a
   shebang line.  If not, then it shouldn't be executable.  It has no main, so
   I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be run.

After that, the only real issue is the static library.  This is obviously
justified as the installer needs it, so all that's needed is a bit of
justification in a comment and a -static subpackage.

I'll attach a patch which fixes up the summaries, the non-utf8 bits, and the
macros in %changelog.  It also splits the static library off into a -static
subpackage and includes some justification.  (Obviously the installer will
need to be fixed to pull in the -static package.)

After this patch, all that remains are the questions of the where upstream is
and where the source comes from.

Checklist:
X can't compare source with upstream.  (Perhaps this is the upstream.)
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* 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.
X rpmlint has valid complaints
* final provides and requires are sane:
  newt-0.52.5-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
   _snackmodule.so()(64bit)
   libnewt.so.0.52()(64bit)
   libnewt.so.0.52(NEWT_0.52)(64bit)
   snack = 0.52.5-1.fc7
   newt = 0.52.5-1.fc7
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libnewt.so.0.52()(64bit)
   libnewt.so.0.52(NEWT_0.52)(64bit)
   libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
   libslang.so.2()(64bit)
   libslang.so.2(SLANG2)(64bit)
   python(abi) = 2.5

  newt-devel-0.52.5-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
   newt-devel = 0.52.5-1.fc7
  =
   libnewt.so.0.52()(64bit)
   newt = 0.52.5
   slang-devel

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream
* shared libraries present; ldconfig are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* find-lang used appropriately.
* 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.
* no pkgconfig files.
X static libraries present, not in -static and no justification.
* no libtool .la droppings.

-- 
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.