[Bug 491545] Review Request: pynac - A modified version of GiNaC using Python

[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=491545


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 #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-04-01 12:00:07 EDT ---
Note that I see 89 additional rpmlint complaints of the type:

pynac.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libpynac-0.1.so.2.0.1 
  PyTuple_Type

It looks like libpynac isn't linked properly against... something. Maybe
libpython?  I guess they assume that everything which will use this library
will link against libpython itself, as the .pc file indicates.  I've always
thought that to be bad form, but such things aren't review blockers.  Still, do
note that you get more rpmlint output if you run it against the installed
packages.

It would be nice if %description had some indication of what GiNaC is.  Maybe:
  A modified version of the GiNaC symbolic computation library which uses
python 
  as its numerical library.
or something.

Shouldn't the resulting package have some dependency on python or some python
library?  I guess that's due to the same issue as the undefined-non-weak-symbol
rpmlint complaints; since nothing here is actually linked against libpython,
rpm won't find a dependency.  I guess anything built with this package will end
up having the proper dependency (if it's built correctly, that is), so I'm
really not sure what the proper dependencies are.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   c7c7538c6dc0da801bb7af6fbbeb1b65800f1a410842416882d02b7bc2381566  
   pynac-0.1.3.spkg
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
x description is a bit confusing.
* dist tag is present.
* 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:
  pynac-0.1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   libpynac-0.1.so.2()(64bit)
   pynac = 0.1.3-1.fc11
   pynac(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc11
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libpynac-0.1.so.2()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.5)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
  (no python dependency)

  pynac-devel-0.1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   pynac-devel = 0.1.3-1.fc11
   pynac-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc11
  =
   /usr/bin/pkg-config
   libpynac-0.1.so.2()(64bit)
   pkgconfig
   pynac = 0.1.3-1.fc11

  pynac-static-0.1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   pynac-static = 0.1.3-1.fc11
   pynac-static(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc11
  =
   pynac-devel = 0.1.3-1.fc11

* 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.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are 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.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is there.
* static libraries present in a separate -static package.
* 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.