[Bug 566725] Review Request: GDCM - Grassroots DiCoM is a C++ library to reading/parsing and writing DICOM medical files

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Oct 19 08:58:06 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=566725

--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-10-19 04:58:05 EDT ---
Koji scratch build for Fedora 14:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2542475

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent, but all its messages may be ignored or resolution of
mentioned issues may be postponed:

gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dicom -> dicot, di com,
di-com
gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US huffman -> Huffman, huff
man, huff-man
gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding,
encoding s, encodes
gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, massless
gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy

^^ these are false positives

gdcm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgdcmjpeg16.so.2.0.16
exit at GLIBC_2.0
gdcm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgdcmjpeg12.so.2.0.16
exit at GLIBC_2.0
gdcm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgdcmjpeg8.so.2.0.16
exit at GLIBC_2.0

^^ this should be reported upstream.

gdcm-devel.i686: W: no-documentation

^^ this package just doesn't contain documentation

gdcm-python.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_gdcmswig.so _gdcmswig.so

^^ this *should* be filtered out. See the following link for the details:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering

gdcm-python.i686: W: no-documentation

^^ this package just doesn't contain documentation

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.


+ 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 (BSD).

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be
included in %doc. Please, add Copyright.txt as %doc. Also consider adding some
other files to %doc. I believe that marking Examples directory as %doc in devel
subpackage would be useful.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gdcm-2.0.16.tar.bz2*
f0e1d8e6a29976cdf71caa4ab84cbd8149464f4598f33682e751f3e9a956f265 
gdcm-2.0.16.tar.bz2
f0e1d8e6a29976cdf71caa4ab84cbd8149464f4598f33682e751f3e9a956f265 
gdcm-2.0.16.tar.bz2.1
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.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. There is a patched
copy of a ijg-6b librarybut it can't be removed easily.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns 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.
+ 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 stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
*-devel package.
+ The -devel 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 rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, here is the list of remaining items:

* Add filtering for private python module
* Add license files to %doc (and add more docs)

-- 
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