[Bug 445980] Review Request: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser

[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: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445980


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  2008-05-12 01:12 EST -------
Builds fine; rpmlint says only:
  odpdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
  python-odpdom.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which are OK.

If you're going to use the macro forms of commands line %{__make}, you should
use %{__rm} as well.  Also, if you prefer %{buildroot} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you
should use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.  Just try to be consistent in
your usage of macro forms.

I note you're not using the dist tag.  I guess you maintain enough packages that
you can handle the version juggling required when you don't use the dist tag.

* source files match upstream:
   10aba36b25a1b0e6dcfba10b5211b28b2bbd339365fb9ddc48496d357ecf7036  
   odpdom-0.2.1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named and is cleanly written.
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* 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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  odpdom-0.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm
   libODP.so.0()(64bit)
   odpdom = 0.2.1-1
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libODP.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)

  odpdom-devel-0.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm
   odpdom-devel = 0.2.1-1
  =
   libODP.so.0()(64bit)
   odpdom = 0.2.1-1

  python-odpdom-0.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm
   _cODP.so()(64bit)
   python-odpdom = 0.2.1-1
  =
   libODP.so.0()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libpython2.5.so.1.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   python(abi) = 2.5

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries installed; ldconfig is called properly.  Unversioned .so link 
   is 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 OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* 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.