[Bug 661810] Review Request: libcacard - Common Access Card emulation 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=661810

--- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-12 05:08:49 EST ---
Thanks, full review below:

Good:
----
- rpmlint says:
libcacard.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
libcacard.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
libcacard.src: W: no-%clean-section
libcacard-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libcacard-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libcacard-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vscclient
These can all be ignored
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok

Needs work:
-----------
- rpmlint says:
libcacard.src:59: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
libcacard.src:59: W: macro-in-%changelog %files
libcacard-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on
libcacard/libcacard-libs/liblibcacard
These are bad, see below
- devel should require base package n-v-r, iow it needs a
Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
line below its Summary. You should add the same to the the -tools subpackage
to force the -tools and main package version to stay in sync
- macros in changelog, when you refer to a macro like %doc in the changelog
use %%doc instead
- Your rpm Group tag is wrong and although mostly unused in Fedora, I
believe it should still be right. For the main package it should be:
Group:          System Environment/Libraries
and then for -devel
Group:          Development/Libraries

Notes:
------
- The source files in the tarbal miss a LGPLv2+ copyright / license header,
  please add those in the next upstream release
- A hint for your next package, it is a good idea to start out with one of the
  templates under /etc/rpmdevtools

-- 
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]