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: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-05-13 20:41 EST ------- Since Laurent isn't in fedorabugs group yet, I am happy to "officially" review this package. ;) (I'm running thru my full checklist even tho many of these were checked above) See below - Rpmlint output. OK - Package name. OK - Spec file name matches. - Package guidelines. OK - Licsense. (GPL/QPL) OK - License field matches in spec. OK - License included in files OK - Spec in american english OK - Spec legible OK - Md5sum of source from upstream 18bca010d09b98e94210710047baca0a qt-x11-opensource-src-4.1.2.tar.gz 18bca010d09b98e94210710047baca0a qt-x11-opensource-src-4.1.2.tar.gz.1 OK - Compiles and builds on one arch at least. (builds in mock on fc5, devel is broken currently) OK - No Forbidden buildrequires included OK - All required buildrequires included OK - Ldconfig in post/postun if including libs. OK - Owns all directories it creates. OK - No duplicate files in %files listing. OK - Permissions on files correct. OK - Clean section correct. OK - Macros consistant. OK - Code not content. OK - Docs subpackage needed for large documentations. OK - Docs must not affect runtime. OK - Header files/libs in a devel package. OK - Pkgconfig (.pc) files in devel package. OK - .so files in devel package. OK - Devel package requires base package. OK - No .la files. OK - .desktop file if a GUI app OK - Doesn't own any files/dirs that are already owned by others. SHOULD Items: OK - Subpackages require base package. OK - builds in mock (fc5 at least). Issues found: 1. There are some commented out items in the spec, if they aren't used it might be good to just remove them: #define x_deps XFree86-devel XFree86-Mesa-libGL XFree86-Mesa-libGLU ... #rm -f %{buildroot}%{qtdir}/mkspecs/default/linux-g++* ... #config /etc/profile.d/* ... 2. Do you need the /etc/ld.so.conf.d in Requires(pre) and Requires(post)? Thats provided by glibc, which I would expect is always present in the base os... 3. What does this comment refer to? # Not sure how to use, where to put this, yet -- Rex 4. Does everything build as expected under x86_64 and ppc? I don't have either of those arch'es here, might be good to test if someone could do some quick mockbuilds, especially since you are directly doing some tests that would affect things on x86_64 at least. 5. You have calls to a %debug variable in the build. Perhaps comment that at the top of the spec in case someone wants to use it? or just remove it if it's never used. 6. Are static (.a) libs wanted/used by anyone? (There are 2 in -devel) 7. Current rpmlint output has a few things in it. E: qt4 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/LICENSE.GPL E: qt4 script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/LICENSE.QPL Suggest: change permissions to 644 ? E: qt4 configure-without-libdir-spec Suggest: adding '--libdir=%{_libdir}' to ./configure call E: qt4-designer devel-dependency qt4-devel E: qt4-docs devel-dependency qt4-devel Should designer and docs require devel? There are about a zillion of these (ok, only 6008) : W: qt4-docs doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/qt4/examples/draganddrop/fridgemagnets/fridgemagnets libgcc_s.so.1 Suggest: make examples/demos not %doc. Possibly split them all out into a qt4-examples and/or qt4-demos ? People typically don't expect doc packages to have lots of requires. E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/qmake.conf E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/Info.plist.app Suggest: change perms to 644 on those files? 8. Are there no man pages? I don't see any in any of the packages, comment #2 and #3 makes mention of them. Starting to look close. ;) -- 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