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=493432 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-01 15:11:17 EDT --- Is there really no upstream URL? You probably want to remove the commented URL tag as it seems unrelated. Unfortunately without an upstream site I don't have a clue as to how you find new version of the source. You also get a few rpmlint complaints: libgdata.x86_64: W: no-url-tag libgdata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag libgdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag which are OK as long as there really isn't some upstream site to point to. Also: libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 The library is linked against a few things that are not really necessary. This should cause any real problems as those will always be loaded anyway. I don't see where the license is LGPLv2+. The source looks to me as if it's GPLv3+, which might have implications for your planned usage. Unpack the source and grep for 'of the License'. It's true that for whatever bizarre reason, upstream included version 2 of the actual LGPL text, but that has no bearing on the actual license that's on the code. Can you query upstream about this? As far as I can tell, there is a test suite but it makes calls out to network services which must already be set up, so there's no way it could be run during the build process. So really the only must-fix blocker issue I see is the license tag. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bb19c90e8bb2f1ead0d7f407ba15e2f6b6d8a2a355b263ca9338bf68846a5b72 libgdata-0.1.0.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. ? 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 acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libgdata.so.2()(64bit) libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11 libgdata(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig libgdata.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libgdata-devel-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(libgdata) = 0.1.0 libgdata-devel = 0.1.0-1.fc11 libgdata-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11 = /usr/bin/pkg-config gtk-doc libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11 libgdata.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(libsoup-2.4) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0) * %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time. * shared libraries 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. * no 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. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency. * 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