Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cairomm (C++ bindings for cairo) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182463 seg@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |seg@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From seg@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-06 01:13 EST ------- I can't sponsor, but here's my first review ever: MUST items: - rpmlint: ? E: cairomm shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libcairomm-1.0.so.0.0.5 I don't know how big a problem this is or how to fix it. (FC5t3 i386) - Package name: Ok - Spec name: Ok - Meets packaging guidelines: Ok - License: Ok - Spec in American English: Ok - Spec legible: Ok - Sources match upstream: Ok - Builds: Yes (FC5t3 i386) - BuildRequires: Ok - Locales: Ok - ldconfig: Ok - Relocation: Ok - Directory ownership: Ok - %files: Ok - %clean: Ok - Macros: Ok - Code vs. Content: Ok - Documentation: Ok - devel package: Ok - .desktop file: n/a SHOULD: - Includes license text: Ok - Spec translations: Ok? - Mock build: n/a, I don't have mock set up yet - Builds on all archs: n/a, I only have i386 - Package functional: Ok, included png_file example compiles and runs - Scriptlets: Ok - Subpackages: Ok NEEDSWORK: There are duplicate Group: lines in the devel package. I notice the devel package installs the API reference into /usr/share/doc/libcairomm-1.0, upstream seems confused as to what the name/verison really is. This is probably something to bug upstream about. For now, I'd see if you can use configure flags to convince it to put reference/ into /usr/share/doc/cairomm-%{version}/ instead, failing that, move it over in %install Style soapbox (These aren't blockers): IMHO, macros are for versions and paths. Stuff that can and will change. I don't like the over use of %{name} everywhere. Especially in %description and Summary. IMHO, %{name} should be used in BuildRoot and nowhere else. Renaming a package shouldn't happen very often, so there's little need for using an ugly macro. Also, I would specify %files a bit more exactly. I find its best to be aware of when upstream adds/renames/removes files, excessive globbing can end up with mysterious new files turning up in the wrong package. Better to error out due to unpackaged files. I would use: %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc AUTHORS COPYING README NEWS ChangeLog %{_libdir}/libcairomm-1.0.so.0* %files devel %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_libdir}/libcairomm-1.0.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/cairomm-1.0.pc %{_includedir}/cairomm-1.0/ %doc %{_datadir}/doc/libcairomm-1.0/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
