[Bug 624020] Review Request: libbluedevil - A Qt wrapper for bluez

[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=624020

Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-13 03:34:35 EDT ---
[thomas@tusdell ~]$ rpmlint libbluedevil
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libbluedevil.so.1.5 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libbluedevil.so.1.5 /lib64/libm.so.6
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

^^^^ installed libbluedevil

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
LGPLv2+
XX - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
md5sum 038bdc46b5b74e96fb178ec6ae9ed2d2
NN - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
NN - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
NN - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NN - .la files are removed.

NN - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
XX - No rpmlint output.
See above
and:
libbluedevil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluez -> blue, blues, bluer
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
Still under heavy development, patches flying around, upstream is very
responsive and fast.

Issues:
The two warnings about spelling error and no documentation can be ignored.

The above rpmlint output about unused-direct-shlib-dependency should be
reported/asked upstream. None are blockers.

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.
_______________________________________________
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]