[Bug 724942] Review Request: libmodbus - A Modbus library written in C

[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=724942

--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-08-01 08:41:03 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

+/- rpmlint is not fully silent

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libmodbus-*
libmodbus.ppc: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.2-1 ['3.0.1-1.fc16',
'3.0.1-1']

^^^ should be 3.0.1-1 

libmodbus.ppc: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+
libmodbus-debuginfo.ppc: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+
libmodbus-devel.ppc: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+

^^^ Should be simply LGPLv2+

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

+ 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. See
note regarding "License" tag above.

+ 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, must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libmodbus-3.0.1.tar.gz*
37288f50e2087d73d8d43d0902fcc095ed4985304c09ec8ee3b6472e138b77d4 
libmodbus-3.0.1.tar.gz
c45bd1d64a3a8970fbbfa1f6671d3f67bced9ff27b47360724aebc5512b0e0af 
libmodbus-3.0.1.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

- The package doesn't successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3243189
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3243183

Please, add missing BuildRequires: automake

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.
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.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section (it has an empty %clean section),
so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure
about EL-6). Beware.
+ 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.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime
requirement added.
+ 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.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Almost finished.
Please, 

a) Add missing BuildRequires: automake
b) Ensure that anyone could download exact the same tarball as you're using
when building the package.
c) Fix "License" field
d) Fix topmost %changelog entry to match current Version and Release fields.

and tell me your FAS name to grant you packager's privileges.

-- 
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.