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: gauche-gl - OpenGL binding for Gauche https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188178 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-06 20:05 EST ------- On Brian's remarks: 1) I don't see problems with ownership of %{_infodir}; the package will own /usr/share/info/gauche-gl-refe.info.gz but doesn't own the directory. 2) Yep, those could be trimmed although this isn't a blocker. 3) I think it's important that Requires(post): and Requires(postun): for install-info be listed separately. 4) RPM won't pick up the versioned dependency. I don't know about Gauche internals but it's possible that the soname alone is not sufficient; there may be scheme code dependencies as well. Gérard would be the best one to decide on that. 5) I can't argue about VERSION; I looked for other rather content-free README files and found a couple quickly (axis and bug-buddy) so there seems to be some precedent for including that kind of thing even when it doesn't say much. It's a coin toss. My own issues: You're missing BR: texinfo; without it, no info files are generated and the build fails in %files. rpmlint complains: W: gauche-gl incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1-1 0.4.1-3 Please add a changelog entry when you bump the revision. W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/particle.vert W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/particle.frag W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/3Dlabs-License.txt W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/README.txt W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/brick.frag W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/3Dlabs-License.txt W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/ogl2particle.scm W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/README.txt W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/brick.vert I suggest you run these through sed to strip the carriage returns. W: gauche-gl hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gauche/0.8.7/lib/.packages W: gauche-gl hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gauche/0.8.7/lib/.packages Same issue as with gauche-gtk; it's your decision on handling this. W: gauche-gl devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/gauche/0.8.7/include/gauche/math3d.h Is this needed at runtime? The guidelines indicate that this should be in a -devel package, but it seems a waste for just one file. W: gauche-gl doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/glbook/run /usr/bin/env Probably the same issue as with gauche-gtk. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible; text is included in the package. * source files match upstream: a51b19a0f16f88ed6cd85c6e49cc6e75 Gauche-gl-0.4.1.tgz a51b19a0f16f88ed6cd85c6e49cc6e75 Gauche-gl-0.4.1.tgz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are more than necessary (which is not a blocker) and missing texinfo (which is a blocker) * package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64) (after fixing RB: texinfo) X rpmlint complains; see above. X final provides are sane; final requires include extra /usr/bin/env and install-info should be in Requires(post) and Requires(postun). O shared libraries are present, but are internal to gauche. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions: executable file in %doc. * %clean is present. O %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets are sane. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review