[Bug 718395] Review Request: libmusicbrainz4-4.0.0 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers

[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=718395

Cosimo Cecchi <ccecchi@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ccecchi@xxxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #6 from Cosimo Cecchi <ccecchi@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-06 10:55:37 EST ---
Okay, giving a shot at this - it's my first package review, so apologies if I
am missing something.

- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK
- Spec file matches base package name. - OK
- Spec has consistent macro usage. - OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
- License - LGPLv2+ (OK)
- License field in spec matches - OK
- License file included in package - OK
- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible. - OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum:  - OK
21c33f5dd20b8bb945b800e2a964f27e  libmusicbrainz-4.0.0.tar.gz

- Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A
- BuildRequires correct - OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A
- Package is code or permissible content. - OK
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK

- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - ***

-devel subpackage is missing a requires on pkgconfig

- .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} -OK
- .la files are removed. - ***

They don't seem to be removed, but maybe it's not necessary here?

- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - N/A

- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - tested x86_64 w/mock
- 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.  - OK 
- No rpmlint output. - ***

libmusicbrainz4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta
data, meta-data, metatarsal
libmusicbrainz4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -> lockup,
hookup, look up
libmusicbrainz4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roms -> toms,
rims, oms

- final provides and requires are sane: OK

SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock. - tested x86_64
- Should build on all supported archs - didn't test
- Should function as described. - didn't test
- Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. -
OK
- Should have dist tag  - OK
- Should package latest version - OK

Issues:
- Add pkgconfig to Requires in -devel
- Check whether it's required to remove .la files

-- 
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]