[Bug 566729] Review Request: CharLS - An optimized implementation of the JPEG-LS 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=566729

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-03-09 06:37:42 EST ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is almost silent:

Workplace ~: rpmlint Desktop/CharLS-*
CharLS-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Workplace ~:

+ 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 .
+ 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, as
provided in the spec URL. 

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum CharLS-1.0_beta.zip
~/Desktop/CharLS-1.0_beta.zip 
c6fdbdb48d18205afaf7ae4b9e73984ee4bf927cec99a86c3c0ad3e2021e8c99 
CharLS-1.0_beta.zip
c6fdbdb48d18205afaf7ae4b9e73984ee4bf927cec99a86c3c0ad3e2021e8c99 
/home/petro/Desktop/CharLS-1.0_beta.zip
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package does not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package own all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. The %files section includes a
%defattr(...) line.
+ 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 permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.


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.