[Bug 691597] Review Request: libopkele - A C++ implementation of the OpenID decentralized identity system

[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=691597

Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr at sylvestre.me> changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr at sylvestre.me> 2011-04-01 12:29:07 EDT ---
Hushan -- FYI, the GPLv2+ parts are just GNU autotools, they are only used
during the build process. But it's a good habit to be careful with licenses
when reviewing packages!

Brian --
  apart from AUTHORS not being packaged, everything else looks fine. There are
  some declarations that are redundant unless you want to target EL5 or EL6,
see
  complete reviews below.

  Feel free to include AUTHORS when updating the package before you build it,
  I wouldn't hold the review up for it. APPROVED.

* TODO Review [90%]
  - [X] Names [2/2]
    - [X] Package name
    - [X] Spec name
  - [X] Package version [2/2]
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
    - [X] Version number
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag
    - [X] Release tag
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
  - [X] Meets
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]]
  - [X] Source files match upstream
 $ sha1sum libopkele-2.0.4.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/libopkele-2.0.4.tar.bz2 
        0c403d118efe6b4ee4830914448078c0ee967757  libopkele-2.0.4.tar.bz2
        0c403d118efe6b4ee4830914448078c0ee967757 
../SOURCES/libopkele-2.0.4.tar.bz2
  - [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No
bundled libraries]]
  - [X] License [4/4]
    - [X] License is Fedora-approved
    - [X] No licensing conflict
    - [X] License field accurate
    - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream
  - [X] rpmlint [2/2]
    - [X] on src.rpm
      libopkele.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementor ->
implementer, implement or, implement-or
      => rpmlint needs a better dictionary
      1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
    - [X] on x86_64.rpm
          libopkele.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementor
-> implementer, implement or, implement-or
          libopkele-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
          3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

          additional warnings on on installed packages; should be harmless.
            the sources do include the relevant headers, so I'm not sure if
            the warnings are accurate.
          libopkele.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
            /usr/lib64/libopkele.so.3.0.0 /usr/lib64/libssl.so.10
          libopkele.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
            /usr/lib64/libopkele.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
          libopkele.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
            /usr/lib64/libopkele.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1
          libopkele.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
            /usr/lib64/libopkele.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6

  - [X] Language & locale [3/3]
    - [X] Spec in US English
    - [X] Spec legible
    - [X] Use %find_lang to handle locale files
   N/A
  - [X] Build [3/3]
    - [X] Koji results
          http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2962668
    - [X] BRs complete
   There's an optional dependency on Konforka, developed by the
   same folks, but we don't have it yet. Might be worth packaging
   next?
    - [X] Directory ownership
  - [-] Spec inspection [9/10]
    - [X] ldconfig for libraries
    - [X] No duplicate files
    - [X] File permissions
    - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8
    - [X] no BuildRoot
([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if
targeting RHEL5]])
   You don't need BuildRoot anymore, but it's fine to have it.
    - [X] [RHEL]  %clean section
          https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean)
   Likewise; unnecessary unless targeting EL5 and EL6
    - [X] [RHEL 5] %buildroot cleaned on %install
   ... and this
    - [X] Macro usage consistent
    - [-] Documentation [2/3]
      - [X] If large docs, separate -doc
     N/A
      - [X] %doc files are non-essential
      - [-] Relevant documentations included
     AUTHORS file should probably be packaged
    - [X] Development [5/5]
      - [X] Headers in -devel
      - [X] If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel
      - [X] Static only if necessary, put in -static
     N/A
      - [X] -devel, -static requires main
      - [X] No .la

-- 
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.