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=502621 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-03 18:11:54 EDT --- FYI, I get 78 rpmlint complaints: 75 undefined-non-weak-symbol complaints and three unused-direct-shlib-dependency complaints (on libm). You only get these if you install the package and then run "rpmlint libint". The undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings are in two libraries: libr12-stable.so.1.0.0 and libderiv-stable.so.1.0.0. It looks like these refer to symbols in libint-stable.so and you're supposed to be sure to link against the proper libraries yourself. Which is bad form, but doesn't block this package. The URL gives "403 Forbidden". I would recommend http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-dept/valeev/software/libint/libint.html or http://libint.valeyev.net/. None of the source files has any license info at all. The LICENSE file includes the block of text which should be at the top of every source file, and there's no copy of the GPL in sight. The text in the LICENSE file is sufficient to establish that the package is GPLv2+, but upstream is most definitely doing it wrong. It's somewhat surprising that there's no test suite. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: f67b13bdf1135ecc93b4cff961c1ff33614d9f8409726ddc8451803776885cff libint-1.1.4.tar.gz * 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. * license field matches 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: libint-1.1.4-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libderiv-stable.so.1()(64bit) libint-stable.so.1()(64bit) libr12-stable.so.1()(64bit) libint = 1.1.4-1.fc11 libint(x86-64) = 1.1.4-1.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig libderiv-stable.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libint-stable.so.1()(64bit) libr12-stable.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libint-devel-1.1.4-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libint-devel = 1.1.4-1.fc11 libint-devel(x86-64) = 1.1.4-1.fc11 = libderiv-stable.so.1()(64bit) libint = 1.1.4-1.fc11 libint-stable.so.1()(64bit) libr12-stable.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries installed; ldconfig is called properly unversioned .so links are 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. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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