[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464047


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |orcanbahri at yahoo.com




--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com>  2008-10-25 03:04:14 EDT ---
Hey Jameson, I'd like to help you get the package in shape. Here are my notes:

* rpmlint output: I didn't get those unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings
but I got this output:

libprojectM.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/libprojectM-1.2.0/ChangeLog
libprojectM.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/projectM/fonts/Vera.ttf ../../fonts/bitstream-vera/Vera.ttf
libprojectM.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/projectM/fonts/VeraMono.ttf ../../fonts/bitstream-vera/VeraMono.ttf
libprojectM-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

The first warning can be fixed via 
    sed -i 's/\r//' ChangeLog

The other warnings can be ignored.

* Source0 link needs corrected.

* The license should be LGPLv2+ since the source files say "any later version".
Also please recommend upstream to put a license file in their tarball.

* Afaik we usually don't put a BuildRequires (BR) in sub-packages. BR:
pkgconfig is redundant anyways because ftgl-devel will pull that up. Also I
don't think BR:kdelibs is necessary. Am I wrong?

* Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).

* Requires: ftgl and glew are also redundant. RPM should pick them up itself.

* Is Requires: cmake (in the devel subpackage) really necessary?

* You are creating but not owning %{_datadir}/projectM/ and
%{_includedir}/%{name}/ directories. Those need fixed.

* This part can be taken off:
   %if "%{_lib}" == "lib64"
           -DLIB_SUFFIX=64 \
   %endif
   .

* Note that, ideally, packagers should put comments in the SPEC files to tell
what the patches do, or why they are there.

----
Well that's all for now. I hope this will be useful for you.

-- 
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.