[Bug 603233] Review Request: zeromq - Software library for fast, message-based applications

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jul 23 06:20:45 UTC 2010


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=603233

Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> 2010-07-23 02:20:43 EDT ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i686).
koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2345975
+ rpmlint output for SRPM and for RPM.
zeromq-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zmq -> Zama, zoom,
Zarqa
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ source files match upstream url (sha1sum)
cfe061d06431eccbbc95df2d257d07447c7f4cce  zeromq-2.0.7.tar.gz
cfe061d06431eccbbc95df2d257d07447c7f4cce  zeromq-2.0.7.tar.gz.srpm

+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present which is not needed now.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ libzmq.pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ ldconfig scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Package zeromq-2.0.7-3.fc14.x86_64 =>
Provides: libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libzmq.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Package zeromq-devel-2.0.7-3.fc14.x86_64 =>
Provides: pkgconfig(libzmq) = 2.0.7
Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
+ Package zeromq-utils-2.0.7-3.fc14.x86_64 =>
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libzmq.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Not a GUI application



Suggestions
1) If package is needed only for F-13 and above then please follow
  a) buildroot should be removed
  b) %clean not needed
  c) cleaning of buildroot at start of %install also not needed

2) Please add some empty line between %package and %description sections for
-devel and -utils subpackages 

3) %description for -devel packages are generally generic. See
/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-lib.spec
So please replace existing %description text with following

The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for 
developing applications that use %{name}.

4) %description for -utils should be simple like
 Utility files for libzmq package
or
This package contains ZeroMQ related utility files,
e.g. zmq_forwarder, zmq_streamer and zmq_queue.

5) For me working Source URL is
http://zeromq.wdfiles.com/local--files/area:download/zeromq-%{version}.tar.gz

Please fix these before you go for cvs import.


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.


More information about the package-review mailing list