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: libsexymm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193108 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-08-12 14:47 EST ------- Greetings. Here's a review: OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: cb01af4595000d9e192f5d9fcff5b742 libsexymm-0.1.7.tar.gz cb01af4595000d9e192f5d9fcff5b742 libsexymm-0.1.7.tar.gz.1 See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch See below - BuildRequires correct n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: See Below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. See Below - Should build in mock. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. Issues: 1. The COPYING file included is the GPL, not the LGPL that this package is distributed under. Perhaps ping upstream to include the correct license file? 2. Doesn't build under mock for me, I get: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lxml2 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[5]: *** [libsexymm.la] Error 1 Possibly missing BuildRequires: libxml2-devel? With that added it builds. 3. Are these Requires in the main package needed: Requires: gtkmm24 Requires: libsexy >= 0.1.7 and in the devel package: Requires: gtkmm24-devel 4. rpmlint says: W: libsexymm one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig W: libsexymm one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig Suggest: Might change your post and postun to just do -p /sbin/ldconfig E: libsexymm-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These should be under /usr/include and /usr/share? /usr/lib/libsexymm/include /usr/lib/libsexymm/include/libsexymmconfig.h /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4 /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4/convert.m4 /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4/convert_libsexymm.m4 W: libsexymm-devel no-documentation This one can be ignored. -- 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