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: mdbtools - tools for extracting things from Access databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223557 ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-21 10:11 EST ------- And here's the review: 1. package doesn't meet naming and packaging guidelines, see below. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} is redundant, %setup -q is enough. Make that line %{_includedir}/mdb* read %{_includedir}/mdb*.h Please split the GUI app into a separate package, it adds a lot of dependencies. Please split the libraries into %package -n libmdb and put LGPL in its License: field (see 6. below). Consider splitting the ODBC driver, too. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 5. license field matches the actual license, but see 1. "Files in libmdb are licensed under LGPL and the utilities under the GPL, see COPYING.LIB and COPYING files respectively." 6. license is open source-compatible (GPL/LGPL). License text included in package. Add COPYING.LIB to %docs. 7. source files match upstream: 4a18bf96e67161101cade64526756d22 mdbtools-0.5.tar.gz 8. latest version is being packaged. Is 0.6pre1 not stable enough? 9. BuildRequires are probably incomplete, you are not building the ODBC driver. I suggest adding BR: unixODBC-devel and --with-unixodbc=/proper/path 10. package builds in mock (x86_64/devel,fc6). 11. rpmlint warning can be fixed by adding HACKING to -devel %doc. W: mdbtools-devel no-documentation 12. final provides and requires are sane, but see 1. mdbtools-0.5-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm libmdb.so.0()(64bit) libmdbsql.so.0()(64bit) mdbtools = 0.5-1.fc7 = /sbin/ldconfig libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmdb.so.0()(64bit) libmdbsql.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) 13. shared libraries are present and handled properly with ldconfig. 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. no duplicates in %files. 18. file permissions are appropriate. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not present and no testsuite. 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. headers present only in -devel. 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. GUI app, but no .desktop file. 29. not a web app. NEEDSWORK: 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 28. -- 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