[Bug 614692] Review Request:qtiocompressor - QIODevice that compresses data streams

[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=614692

Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> 2010-07-15 05:46:48 EDT ---
Fedora Review qtiocompressor 2010-07-15

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint qtiocompressor-2.3.1-1.fc12.src.rpm \
          qtiocompressor-2.3.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm \
          qtiocompressor-devel-2.3.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm \
          qtiocompressor-debuginfo-2.3.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
qtiocompressor.src:46: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

OK - the build get the compiler flags from qt-devel


+ Package is named according to guidelines
+ Specfile is named after package
+ The Package license tag (GPLv3 or LGPLv2 with exceptions) is a
  Fedora approved license
+ The Package license tag matches the license statements in the sources
+ The license files are included in the package as %doc:
  LICENSE.GPL3, LICENSE.LGPL, LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt
+ The specfile is written in legible English
+ Source matches upstream:

md5sum srpm/qtiocompressor-2.3_1-opensource.tar.gz \
       qtiocompressor-2.3_1-opensource.tar.gz 
73bbde56cf705602b4f180b379756a40  srpm/qtiocompressor-2.3_1-opensource.tar.gz
73bbde56cf705602b4f180b379756a40  qtiocompressor-2.3_1-opensource.tar.gz

+ Koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2321485
+ BuildRequires are sane
+ No locales
+ Package calls ldconfig appropriately
+ No bundled libraries
+ Package owns directories it creates
+ No duplicate files
+ Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr
+ Specfile uses macros consistently
+ %doc is not runtime essential
+ Headers in -devel
+ No static libraries
+ .so link in -devel
+ -devel requires main with fully qualified version
+ No libtool archives

+ A repoquery reveals that the /usr/include/QtSolutions directory is
  already owned by qtlockedfile-devel - but I guess this falls into
  the category "Multiple packages own files in a common directory but
  none of them needs to require the others". If there will be many
  packages putting files there it might be an idea to put this
  directory in qt-devel.

+ Installed files have valid UTF-8 filenames


Package approved.

-- 
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.