[Bug 599097] Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599097

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #16 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2010-06-13 14:18:03 EDT ---
Here's the formal review. The package looks almost fine to me, except one
remaining aspect:
- replace %{_includedir}/gexiv2/* with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/
  to make the package own the directory too (and not only the header files)

$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid
libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville,
Liberian, Liberia
libgexiv2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv,
Gelid
libgexiv2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv ->
Libreville, Liberian, Liberia
libgexiv2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv ->
Libreville, Liberian, Liberia
libgexiv2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv ->
Libreville, Liberian, Liberia
libgexiv2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv ->
Libreville, Liberian, Liberia
libgexiv2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv ->
Libreville, Liberian, Liberia
libgexiv2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

The above spelling errors can be ignored.

---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum libgexiv2-0.0.91.tar.gz*
    16b6252efabb196ae2bf799104caa0cc  libgexiv2-0.0.91.tar.gz
    16b6252efabb196ae2bf799104caa0cc  libgexiv2-0.0.91.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
    - directory %{_includedir}/gexiv2/ must be owned by the -devel package

[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications ...
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. 
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.

-- 
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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


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