[Bug 635515] Review Request: libphidget - Drivers and API for Phidget devices

[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=635515

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-09-20 08:31:07 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is (almost) silent

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libphidget-*
libphidget.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Phidgets -> Fidgets
libphidget-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ 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.(LGPLv3)
+ 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 libphidget_2.1.7.20100621.tar.gz*
63a1a7157f4a2b976b6d6858d8ae03ebef2fdc44f8dbb5832a3bfe2c9579e20c 
libphidget_2.1.7.20100621.tar.gz
63a1a7157f4a2b976b6d6858d8ae03ebef2fdc44f8dbb5832a3bfe2c9579e20c 
libphidget_2.1.7.20100621.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji links above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
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 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 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.
+ The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are 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.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, looks good but some questions are still remains:

1. Why you don't enable java support? Is is intentional? See --enable-jni
configure option.
2. No zeroconf support too. Why?
3. Config-files for hotplug/udev also not installed. I belive that they worth
installing.
4. You provided patch for removing ldconfig and rm at %install stage, but there
is a configure switch --disable-ldconfig. Why not to use it instead?

-- 
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.