[Bug 198244] Review Request: libglade

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: libglade


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198244


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-10-01 22:36 EST -------
So, really it's just the undefined-non-weak-symbol thing.  I'll go ahead and
approve, but it would be good to at least check if it's possible to fix that.

* source files match upstream:
   38b2e2cfd813783fe157617813bfe3b3  libglade-0.17.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged (the latest version before glade2, that is)
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
? rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libglade-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libICE.so.6()(64bit)
   libSM.so.6()(64bit)
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXext.so.6()(64bit)
   libXi.so.6()(64bit)
   libart_lgpl.so.2()(64bit)
   libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit)
   libesd.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_imlib.so.1()(64bit)
   libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnome.so.32()(64bit)
   libgnomesupport.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnomeui.so.32()(64bit)
   libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libxml.so.1()(64bit)

  libglade-devel-0.17-17.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   libglade-devel = 1:0.17-17.fc6
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/env
   gnome-libs-devel >= 1.4.1.2
   libglade = 1:0.17-17.fc6
   libglade-gnome.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade.so.0()(64bit)
   libxml-devel >= 1.8.16
   pkgconfig

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig is called as necessary.  Unversioned .so
files are in the -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers in -devel subpackage.
* pkgconfig file in -devel subpackage; pkgconfig is a dependency.
* no libtool .la droppings.

APPROVED

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]