[Bug 433925] Review Request: libyahoo2 - Library for the Yahoo! Messenger Protocol

[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: libyahoo2 - Library for the Yahoo! Messenger Protocol


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433925


lemenkov at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From lemenkov at gmail.com  2008-05-14 05:43 EST -------
Last minute fix - please add missing BuildRequiires: gtk2-devel

REVIEW

MUST Items:

+ rpmlint is silent.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.


- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.

[petro at localhost SOURCES]$ md5sum libyahoo2-0.7.6.tar.bz2*
9cb9a037506196bc370ba8d48698c4d8  libyahoo2-0.7.6.tar.bz2
3679c2e6a03a57c6f06414ca82b386eb  libyahoo2-0.7.6.tar.bz2.from_srpm

Please, use only upstreamed source from SF.

+ The package is successfully compiled and built into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.
+ All build dependencies (except of gtk2-devel, see above) are listed in
BuildRequires.
+ Package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates. Personally, I'd like to
explicitly add as %dir in files-section for devel-package this line:

dir %{_includedir}/%{name}

and change this one 

%{_includedir}/%{name}/*

to that

%{_includedir}/*

but this only my personal favour, not a blocker.

+ A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are be set properly.
+ A package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ A package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of
Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ Everything, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. 
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ This packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files and it 'Requires: pkgconfig' 
+ A package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), and
library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
+ Package is NOT contains any .la libtool archives.
+ Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:

+ The pkgconfig(.pc) file is placed in a -devel pkg.

OK, please add missing BuildRequire, use exact tarball from SF.net, and this
package is

============
= APPROVED =
============

Don't forget to raise fedora-cvs flag to '?' then you'll be ready.

-- 
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.