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=487713 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-09 20:01:09 EDT --- Builds OK for me in rawhide; rpmlint says: wcslib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx This is probably a bug in the program, but not a review blocker. wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 sincos wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 sqrt wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 floor wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 tan wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 asin wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 log wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 atan wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 fmod wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 acos wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 exp wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 sin wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 pow wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 atan2 wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 cos wcslib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libwcs.so.4.3 log10 These seem to indicate that the library should be linked against libm. It's not a huge issue but I think you would want to fix it because otherwise it shifts the burden of linking against libm onto the consumer of the library. There are some duplicated files. README is present three times and COPYING.LESSER is present twice. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 06d3bc9e01e7d3e1eec817260f7ff1f38e1d4397bdc0d1c3e6fb3a8ac88515a8 wcslib-4.3.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license fields matche the actual licenses. * licenses are open source-compatible. * license texts included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. ? rpmlint has some complaints which would be good to fix. * final provides and requires are sane: wcslib-4.3.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libwcs.so.4.3()(64bit) wcslib = 4.3.1-1.fc11 wcslib(x86-64) = 4.3.1-1.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig libwcs.so.4.3()(64bit) wcslib-devel-4.3.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm wcslib-devel = 4.3.1-1.fc11 wcslib-devel(x86-64) = 4.3.1-1.fc11 = libwcs.so.4.3()(64bit) wcslib = 4.3.1-1.fc11 wcslib-utils-4.3.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm wcslib-utils = 4.3.1-1.fc11 wcslib-utils(x86-64) = 4.3.1-1.fc11 = libcfitsio.so.0()(64bit) wcslib = 4.3.1-1.fc11 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I installed and ran the executables, but I don't have a data set to pass to them, nor any understanding of what results I'd expect to get. * shared libraries are installed: ldconfig is called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review