[Bug 807760] Review Request: jbigkit - JBIG1 lossless image compression tools

[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=807760

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2012-04-15 13:44:17 EDT ---
Ok, it builds fine on my powerpc box, so here are my notes. 

I really really don't like the idea of installing random COPYING file as the
source of the licensing info. Also this is the violation of the Fedora rules,
so please drop  it - this is a blocker. Use that one which is shipped with the
tarball. I really don't care whether they are identical or not - please you
only that one which is shipped by upstream.

Otherwise everything seems sane. So here is my formal

REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is silent (the messages below can be safely ignored):

sulaco ~/rpmbuild: rpmlint RPMS/ppc/jbigkit-* SRPMS/jbigkit-2.0-5.fc17.src.rpm 
jbigkit.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossless -> loss less, loss-less,
loveless
jbigkit.ppc: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jbgtopbm85
jbigkit.ppc: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pbmtojbg85
jbigkit-devel.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, loveless
jbigkit-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation
jbigkit-libs.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossless -> loss less,
loss-less, loveless
jbigkit-libs.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netpbm -> Nettie
jbigkit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossless -> loss less, loss-less,
loveless
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild: 

+ 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.

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, must be
included in %doc. See my comment above - use one supplied by the upstream.

+ 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 jbigkit-2.0.tar.gz*
f6be61695d18d6315961e473eda92252fdecf9636903bfbf4766a2eeff1f17ee 
jbigkit-2.0.tar.gz
f6be61695d18d6315961e473eda92252fdecf9636903bfbf4766a2eeff1f17ee 
jbigkit-2.0.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ 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 (for *-libs
sub-package).
+ 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
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.
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 requires the *-libs sub-package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: jbigkit-libs%{?_isa} = %{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.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, please, drop the external "COPYING" file installation in the favour of one
shipped within tarball and I'll finish this review.

-- 
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.