[Bug 697326] Review Request: libisoburn - Library to enable creation and expansion of ISO-9660 filesystems

[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=697326

Dennis van Dok <dennisvd at nikhef.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dennisvd at nikhef.nl

--- Comment #5 from Dennis van Dok <dennisvd at nikhef.nl> 2011-09-13 18:45:40 EDT ---
This is just an informal review.

rpmlint (minus some spell checks false positives):

libisoburn.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystems -> file systems,
file-systems, ecosystems
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libisoburn.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/libisoburn-1.1.2/COPYING
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

libisoburn.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/libisoburn-1.1.2/COPYRIGHT
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

xorriso.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xorrecord
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

xorriso.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osirrox
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

Naming:  OK

Spec file matches base name: OK

Approved license: OK

Spec file license matches actual license: OK

License in %doc: OK

Spec file in English: OK

Spec file legibility: OK

Upstream source matches SRPM: OK

Package builds in mock: OK

ExcludeArch: No excludes

BuildRequires lists build dependencies: OK

Locale handling: N/A

Library package calls ldconfig in %post, %postun: OK

Not bundling system libraries: OK

Relocatable: N/A

Package owns created directories: OK

List files only once: OK

Correct file permissions: OK

Consistent use of macros: OK

Package contains code: OK

Large doc subpackage: N/A

Documentation does not affect runtime: did not test this, but seems unlikely.

Header files in -devel: OK

Static libraries in -static: N/A

Devel package requires base package: OK

Do not install libtool files: OK

Include .desktop file for GUI apps: N/A

Packages must not own files already owned by other packages: OK

Filenames are valid UTF-8: OK


Some additional comments:

The URL in the spec file http://libburnia-project.org/ currently shows a
placeholder page.

Although the subpackage xorisso implicitly depends on libisoburn, it doesn't
require the
exact base package it was built with. This may not be a problem. It doesn't
include the
copyright and license, and strictly speaking this is covered by the base
package, but as it
is not named after the base package it might be better to include these files
separately
in this package.

After installing libisoburn on a CentOS 5 box, rpmlint reports the following:

libisoburn.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libisoburn.so.1.69.0 /usr/lib64/libz.so.1
libisoburn.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libisoburn.so.1.69.0 /lib64/libacl.so.1

This suggests that upstream should review the dependencies and maybe drop the
-lz and -lacl.

Installed xorriso and used it to create a 400 MB .iso file. No actual burn test
as the VM
lacked a DVD burner ;-)

Final comment: there seems to be another newer upstream release, 1.1.4.

-- 
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.