[Bug 668959] Review Request jbig2dec :: A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format

[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=668959

--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-01-12 08:00:23 EST ---
REVIEW:

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

- rpmlint is NOT silent, and some of its messages should be suppressed:

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/jbig2dec-*
jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy
jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, massless
jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level,
bi-level, bile vel
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, massless
jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level,
bi-level, bile vel

^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them.

jbig2dec.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11 ['0.11-1.fc14',
'0.11-1']

^^^ This should be fixed (easyfix).

jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss,
glossy, flossy
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss
less, loss-less, massless
jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi
level, bi-level, bile vel

^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them.

jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: E: useless-provides jbig2dec-devel

^^^ This should be fixed (easyfix). Just drop explicit "Provides:        
jbig2dec-devel = %{version}-%{release}"

jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

^^^ Ok for now.

jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss,
glossy, flossy
jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss
less, loss-less, massless
jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi
level, bi-level, bile vel

^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them.

5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings.
work ~: 

+ 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 ALMOST meets the Packaging Guidelines.

* You really need to suppress two rpmlint warnings, mentioned by me (see
above).
* Also I advice you to drop "Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}"
line. This sort of dependencies (dependency on libraries) should be picked up
by rpmbuild automatically.
* Drop empty "%doc" line from the %files section.

Otherwise the package looks good.

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license.
Proper license tag is "GPLv2+ with exceptions". Contents of files, licensed
under Public Domain License (sha1.h and sha1.c), under BSD (snprintf.c)m under
GPL w/o explicit version (getopt1.c, getopt.c and getopt.h) are relicensed
under GPLv2+ during linking stage.

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

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz*
7e2d8330b36f2765da22043d174827bee0f30db8d78c330904f363275c7dd0b9 
jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz
7e2d8330b36f2765da22043d174827bee0f30db8d78c330904f363275c7dd0b9 
jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for F-14:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716806

+ 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.
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, so it won't build cleanly on some
systems with old rpm version (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.
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 MUST require the lib sub-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.
0 At the beginning of %install, the package DOESN'T run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). The same warning as for %clean section (see above).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


OK, please address the issues mentioned above, and I'll continue.

-- 
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.