[Bug 431181] Review Request: libitl - Libraries for The Islamic Tools and Libraries Project

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 2 05:34:43 UTC 2008

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: libitl - Libraries for The Islamic Tools and Libraries Project


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-02-02 00:34 EST -------
Builds OK and rpmlint is clean.  Some comments:

It seems that you have no choice but to run the autotools since upstream does
not ship generated copies, but you should ask upstream to do this before
creating your tarball.  Otherwise there could be problems when the version of
Fedora's autotools doesn't match what upstream expects to use.

I do not see where the license version is specified.  The source files seem to
say "under LGPL license" but do not specify a version.  The included COPYING
file says only that you can use any version ever published in this case.  So
instead of LGPLv2 as you have, I think the license tag should be LGPLv2+.  See
this text from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include.

The unversioned .so file needs to be in the -devel package.

This package installs a library into /usr/lib/itl but doesn't configure the
linker to look into that directory.  I haven't yet looked at the packages which
use this library, but I'm not sure how that can work unless they open this
library with dlopen() or they use rpath (which they probably shouldn't).  In any
case, the ldconfig calls are pointless in this case because they will not find
the libraries you have added.  Is there some reason this library needs to be in
its own, separate directory?

* source files match upstream:
* 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.
X license field does not match 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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libitl = 0.6.4-1.fc9

   libitl-devel = 0.6.4-1.fc9
   libitl = 0.6.4-1.fc9

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
? a shared library is installed, but not into a standard location; a call to 
   ldconfig is pointless in this case.
X unversioned .so files should be 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.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list