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 --- Comment #4 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-01 17:21:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > 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. That would be because I asked upstream to make their first release shortly before posting this bug :) > 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? LGPLv2+ it is, fixed in 0.1.1 > 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. It's not run by default. > 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. New version at: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata.spec http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm -- 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