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: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |besfahbo@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 16:59 EST ------- GOOD ==== MUST: Naming Guidelines followed MUST: Packaging Guidelines generally followed (except SMP flags below) MUST: spec filename is fine MUST: License of the library itself is open source (LGPL/MPL) MUST: License filed matches actual licenses MUST: spec file legible MUST: sources match upstream (md5sum used) MUST: RPM build for i386 MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: build dependencies fine MUST: no locales MUST: ldconfig called fine MUST: not relocatable MUST: no duplicate files MUST: file permissions fine (except for -debuginfo, mentioned below) MUST: %clean section fine MUST: macro use consistent MUST: package contains code MUST: large documentation files in -devel instead of -doc (acceptable) MUST: %doc does not affect run-time MUST: header files in -devel MUST: -devel requries pkgconfig MUST: *.so in -devel MUST: -devel has fully versioned dependency MUST: *.la removed explicitly MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' files or dirs SHOULD: no scriptlets SHOULD: no subpackage other than -devel SHOULD: pkgconfig file in -devel BAD === MUST: rpmlint output: $ rpmlint cairo-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman-devel E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman-debuginfo (Provides should be added, -devel and -debuginfo should be obsoleted and provided by subpackages) $ rpmlint cairo-devel-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm W: cairo-devel no-documentation (The HTML files provided in the package are definitely documentation and should be marked as such.) $ rpmlint cairo-debuginfo-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm W: cairo-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/cairo-1.3.12/src/cairo-scaled-font.c W: cairo-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/cairo-1.3.12/src/cairoint.h (These two files are wrongly set to be executables.) MUST: licensing 1) The license files COPYING-LGPL-2.1 and COPYING-MPL-1.1 are not included in the binary RPM. 2) Some auxiliary files refer to GPL (like test/pdiff/pdiff.c), and say that one should have received a copy of the license with the file, while it is not available in the package itself. Upstream problem, but a SHOULD in review list (contact upstream). 3) Although the COPYING file mentions that all "auxiliary components" (test files etc.) are free software and refers to the files' headers, some are not, because their headers doesn't mention any such licensing, which makes them proprietary. Examples: composite-integer-translate-over-repeat.c, composite-integer-translate-source.c, ... in the tests subdirectory. MUST: US English Suggestions: replace "eg." with "e.g." or "for example"; capitalize "cairo" to "Cairo" in the -devel package description. MUST: owning directories The -devel subpackage installs files in /usr/share/gtk-doc/html without owning the directory or depending on anything that owns it. MUST: packaging guidelines * make should use %{?_smp_mflags} flag. SUGGESTIONS =========== * Consider shipping some of the not-shipped docs, like PORTING_GUIDE or TODO as documentation. -- 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