[Bug 435016] Review Request: mmdb - MMDB coordinate library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Oct 23 04:08:36 UTC 2008


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435016


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

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




--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-23 00:08:34 EDT ---
Well, one ticket at a time.  And once this one is done, any packager can review
any of those tickets.  However, there are a few issues here:

The tarball in the source tree differs from the tarball downloaded from the
Source0 URL.  In fact, the diff is almost 37000 lines long.  Any idea what's
going on?

I don't understand why you explicitly %define version and release.  If you just
use:
  Version: 1.09.1
  Release: 7
then %version and %release are defined for you in the same way that %name is.

I would argue that according to the COPYING file, the License: should be
"LGPLv2 with exceptions" but spot above says LGPLv2.  I'll double check with
spot tomorrow.

I don't think its a blocker, but the first paragraph of %description is loaded
with acronyms which are completely meaningless to most people.  A little
elaboration there would be welcome.

Any reason why parallel make is not being used?  You should use it if possible,
but if it breaks you should include a comment to that effect.

The AUTHORS, README and COPYING files are duplicated between the packages. 
There's no need to do that.

X source files do not match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summaries are OK.
* descriptions are OK (could perhaps use some elaboration of acronyms).
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* 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:
  libmmdb-1.09.1-7.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libmmdb.so.0()(64bit)
   libmmdb = 1.09.1-7.fc10
   libmmdb(x86-64) = 1.09.1-7.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libmmdb.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

  libmmdb-devel-1.09.1-7.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libmmdb-devel = 1.09.1-7.fc10
   libmmdb-devel(x86-64) = 1.09.1-7.fc10
  =
   libmmdb = 1.09.1-7.fc10
   libmmdb.so.0()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream (that I could see).
* shared libraries present:
   unversioned .so links are in the -devel package
   ldconfig called properly
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headersa re in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files in -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is present.
* 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.




More information about the package-review mailing list