[Bug 659082] Review Request: redland-bindings - language bindings for redland

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jan 5 02:48:22 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #1 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> 2011-01-04 21:48:20 EST ---
Hi Thomas, here are my findings from my review. It needs a little work:

* "rpmbuild -bs redland-bindings" fails with 
   $ rpmbuild -bs redland-bindings.spec 
   sh: php-config: command not found
   error: Macro %php_extdir has empty body
   sh: /usr/bin/ruby: No such file or directory
   sh: /usr/bin/ruby: No such file or directory

Please fix these lines by using the macros as defined in
Otherwise these might cause an issue in koji.

* Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream. What is their

* rpmlint says:
   python-redland.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Redland.so Redland.so()(64bit)
   perl-redland.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/RDF/Redland/CORE/CORE.so CORE.so()(64bit)
   perl-redland.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
   perl-redland.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/perl-redland- /usr/bin/perl
   php-redland.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
   php-redland.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
   php-redland.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/php-redland- perl(RDF::Redland)
   php-redland.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/php-redland- /usr/bin/perl
As far as I can tell, these all need to be fixed.

* We prefer %global over %defined

! The .html files in the root directory of the tarball could be packaged
(except INSTALL.html)

* There are many files under perl/ and php/ directories, which have the license
   # This package is Free Software or Open Source available under the           
   # following licenses (these are alternatives):                               
   #   1. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)                              
   #   2. GNU General Public License (GPL)                                      
   #   3. Mozilla Public License (MPL)
These do not state any license versions. It would be good to ask upstream.

On the other hand, for example, python/RDF.py says that it is LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+
or ASL 2.0 or MIT, which makes the licensing scenario even more complicated.

Please go through all the source files and document their respective licenses.

are being duplicated. This is okay with license files. However I'm not sure
about the other ones. Maybe put everything in the main package and make all the
subpackages require it?

* The subpackages have
   Requires:       redland = %{redland_version}
which won't be satisfied with the current redland version we have in F-14+.
Don't we need >=

* Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported,
this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.

* The following BuildRequires seem redundant to me:
   perl php openssl-devel mysql-devel postgresql-devel sqlite-devel db4-devel

* Python guidelines are not obeyed:
   - Need to use BuildRequires: python2-devel
   - The macros do not match the guidelines.
Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

* Ruby package must indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends on. Please see

? What is this for:

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