[Bug 499336] Review Request: flickcurl - C library for the Flickr API

[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=499336





--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-05-24 00:26:14 EDT ---
Review:

+ rpmlint is silent:

[petro at Sulaco Desktop]$ rpmlint flickcurl-
flickcurl-1.10-2.fc11.ppc.rpm            flickcurl-1.10-2.fc11.src.rpm         
  flickcurl-debuginfo-1.10-2.fc11.ppc.rpm  flickcurl-devel-1.10-2.fc11.ppc.rpm  
[petro at Sulaco Desktop]$ rpmlint flickcurl-*
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco Desktop]$

+ 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, except one issue with owning
directories - see below.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The 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 matches the upstream source:

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum flickcurl-1.10.tar.gz*
9d952990fd13a8beebbffe58061bbd0f  flickcurl-1.10.tar.gz
9d952990fd13a8beebbffe58061bbd0f  flickcurl-1.10.tar.gz.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1374032

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. So, I advice you to make the following change in "%files devel"
section:

- {_datadir}/gtk-doc/html
+ {_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/*

+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. 
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ No extremely large documentation files
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are be in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.

- The sub-package containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). Yes, I know, that this made
autimatically with modern rpm versions, but 

a) this rule still exists, 
b) and someone may try to rebuild your spec on systems with older rpm (EPEL,
for example)

+ The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
+ Not a GUI application
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Summary:

* Please change "%files devel" section in order not to own entire
{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html
* Add BR pkgconfig to devel sub-package

-- 
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.