[Bug 487713] Review Request: wcslib - An implementation of the FITS World Coordinate System standard

[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=487713


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>  2009-03-09 20:01:09 EDT ---
Builds OK for me in rawhide; rpmlint says:
  wcslib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 
   exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
This is probably a bug in the program, but not a review blocker.

  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 sincos
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 sqrt
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 floor
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 tan
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 asin
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 log
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 atan
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 fmod
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 acos
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 exp
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 sin
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 pow
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 atan2
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 cos
  wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 log10
These seem to indicate that the library should be linked against libm.  It's
not a huge issue but I think you would want to fix it because otherwise it
shifts the burden of linking against libm onto the consumer of the library.

There are some duplicated files.  README is present three times and
COPYING.LESSER is present twice.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   06d3bc9e01e7d3e1eec817260f7ff1f38e1d4397bdc0d1c3e6fb3a8ac88515a8  
   wcslib-4.3.1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summaries are OK.
* descriptions are OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license fields matche the actual licenses.
* licenses are open source-compatible.
* license texts 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 some complaints which would be good to fix.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  wcslib-4.3.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   libwcs.so.4.3()(64bit)
   wcslib = 4.3.1-1.fc11
   wcslib(x86-64) = 4.3.1-1.fc11
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libwcs.so.4.3()(64bit)

  wcslib-devel-4.3.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   wcslib-devel = 4.3.1-1.fc11
   wcslib-devel(x86-64) = 4.3.1-1.fc11
  =
   libwcs.so.4.3()(64bit)
   wcslib = 4.3.1-1.fc11

  wcslib-utils-4.3.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   wcslib-utils = 4.3.1-1.fc11
   wcslib-utils(x86-64) = 4.3.1-1.fc11
  =
   libcfitsio.so.0()(64bit)
   wcslib = 4.3.1-1.fc11

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
  I installed and ran the executables, but I don't have a data set to pass to 
  them, nor any understanding of what results I'd expect to get.

* shared libraries are 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.
X 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.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.