[Bug 226415] Merge Review: sgml-common

[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=226415

--- Comment #18 from Daniel Novotny <dnovotny at redhat.com> 2010-01-15 07:53:46 EST ---
nobody was assigned, I'll take this review now

OK source files match upstream:
103c9828f24820df86e55e7862e28974  sgml-common-0.6.3.tgz
OK source contains full URL
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field matches the actual license (GPL+).
OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.

OK* BuildRequires are proper.
- there's a require on older version of automake, from the previous
review text I see the package needs it
BuildRequires: libxml2 >= 2.4.8-2 also looks quite suspicious
- isn't the version number superfluous? I see there is 
version 2.7.6 of this library in F10 and no older versions are available

OK compiler flags are appropriate. - no compilation necessary
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock.
OK debuginfo package looks complete. - no debuginfo necessary

BAD rpmlint is silent.
sgml-common.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: sgml-common-automake.patch
sgml-common.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: sgml-common-0.6.3-docdir.patch
- unused patches ought to be commented out, I see there is
a comment in the spec you want to keep this patches in the SRPM
but not apply them: does this make sense? why?
xml-common.noarch: W: no-documentation - this is OK I guess, the
description of the package seems to be enough

OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code vs content - can be seen as both, but that's ok
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.

seems OK overall, just need to clarify the unused patches and maybe the BR on
libxml2 should be without version

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.