[Bug 254060] Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16

[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: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254060





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2008-04-15 00:02 EST -------
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
19f881141e18a4f4402af16738ee5ae7  epplets-0.10.tar.gz
19f881141e18a4f4402af16738ee5ae7  epplets-0.10.tar.gz.orig
See below - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See below - .la files are removed.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. As with e16, could you ping upstream to try and change sometime
to a nicer license? Not a blocker, but would be nice to do.

2. I see in the build.log:
configure: WARNING: *** GL epplets will not be built ***

Missing buildrequires?

3. Any reason to ship the .la and .a files? .la files should be removed
and unless there is some good reason, static libs shouldn't be shipped.

4. rpmlint says:
e16-epplets.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
e16-epplets.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
e16-epplets-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
e16-epplets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
e16-epplets-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising

Can be ignored.

5. Not a blocker, but
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(post):   /sbin/ldconfig

shouldn't be needed. rpm is smart enough to add this requires
because you are using -p


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.