Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 12:16 EST ------- Passed ====== MUST: NVR is fine (assuming that renaming the package to glib breaks various things) MUST: spec filename matches package name MUST: license is fine (LGPL) MUST: license field is fine MUST: license in upstream tarball and marked as %doc MUST: spec in American English, as far as I can tell MUST: source matches upstream (both md5sum and sha1sum) MUST: compiled and built binaries on FC6 MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: locales handled finely by %find_lang MUST: ldconfig called in %post and %postun MUST: no relocation MUST: no duplicate files MUST: file permissions fine MUST: %clean section exists and fine MUST: macros fine MUST: contains code MUST: no large docs MUST: %doc files should not be needed to run MUST: header files and static libs are in -devel MUST: -devel require pkgconfig MUST: *.so files are in -devel MUST: -devel has fully versioned dependency MUST: *.la file are removed MUST: not a GUI app MUST: does not seem to own dirs owned by others Suggestions and improvements ============================ * rpmlint gives the following errors: for glib2: E: glib2 obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755 E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755 for glib2-devel: E: glib2-devel obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta-devel E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I believe all should be fixed. * The CVS contains several dropped patches that may need to be removed (depending on how a merge would happen) * The line BuildRequires: pkgconfig >= 0.8 doesn't make sense, specially since rawhide has had a newer version since Feb 2002 and also that since it has had that, it also had an epoch of 1. From the requirement from the configure.in file, it should perhaps be pkgconfig >= 1:0.14. Also update the "Requires" in -devel to 1:0.14. * The viewpoint of the summary for the devel sub-package does not match the viewpoint of the summary of the main package. They should be aligned. * The Conflicts lines are probably wrong or unnecessary. Even if it's required, the reason should be documented and the line probably be changed to "Requires". See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts for details * Static libraries are enabled, contrary to the Packaging Guidelines. I guess the reason should be documented (anaconda?). * The make line in %build does not have %{?_smp_mflags}. * %check is empty for ppc and ppc64. The reason should perhaps be documented. * %defattr line should perhaps have an extra dash at the end: "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" * Package places files in /etc/profile.d (which is not in FHS), without owning the directory itself or having a Requires on a package that does. * May need to mark %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* as %doc Review TODO =========== * Thorough consideration of packaging guidelines (a MUST item) * Theoretically, all dependenies may not be listed (a MUST item), as I did not do a Rawhide mock build. -- 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