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: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-11 04:03 EST ------- Okay. I will review this package. First review: 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * License: - Well, how can I know that this package can be distributed under MIT? It seems that main package does not include any licence document. * rpmlint: - is not silent. W: gdal macro-in-%changelog configure W: gdal macro-in-%changelog configure W: gdal mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs - Use %% in changelog so as the description in changelog is not expanded. - if it is difficult finding where tabs are used, use "sed -i -e 's|\t| |g' gdal.spec", which automatically changes tabs in spec file into two spaces. * Tags: - use %?dist tag * Requires: - -python package requires python-numeric as gdal_merge.py includes the line: "import Numeric" (this dependency cannot be automatically checked). * BuildRequires: - libjpeg-devel, zlib-devel, netcdf-devel <- required by hdf-devel (ditto requires for -devel package) * Encoding - Several text files are encoded in ISO-8859. Change the encoding to UTF-8 unless it is necessary. - ./gdal-1.3.2-1/usr/share/gdal/seed_2d.dgn: Microstation ./gdal-1.3.2-1/usr/share/gdal/seed_3d.dgn: data Well, what are these files? * Why the %makeinstall macro should not be used - Don't use %makeinstall * Timestamps - These (gdal) package contains lots of text files, so keeping timestamps is preferable. Keep timestamps of those files (usually 'make install' accepts the option 'INSTALL="install -c -p"'. * File and Directory Ownership - Don't own the directory %python_sitearch itself. 2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match.... - Specify the URL of the source. I cannot verify is the source is correct. * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, - /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_gdalmodule.la - should be removed. * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described - I have not yet checked if these packages functionally work well as desired. Please give me some simple examples if you can. 3. Other things I have noticed: * Packaging issue: - in %prep stage: - %patch0 -p0: it is preferable that the suffix for original files is specified. - cd %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} is not necessary. The working directory at this stage is it. - in file entry: - Don't use %exclude unless there is no way to avoid using %exclude (such as %exclude %{_bindir}/*.pyc) as it makes file entry somewhat complicate. For example, specify %{_bindir}, %{_mandir}/man1/ entry so as not to use %exclude. Especially: - Explicitly REMOVE the files which are not included in any packages in %install stage (such as static archive) - I doubt that -devel package should have html directory. Owning files under html directory is sufficient. i.e: I suspect that %doc html should be %doc html/* -- 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