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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 19:26 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package. Here's a review: OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 712b21f0354d4f890a02da4f8763768b aqbanking-2.1.0.tar.gz 712b21f0354d4f890a02da4f8763768b aqbanking-2.1.0.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - 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 OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - 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. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 3 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Minor: Could include COPYING file? Also, possibly: AUTHORS Changelog NEWS README TODO 2. Possibly a missing BuildRequires: checking for AccountNumberCheck_new in -lktoblzcheck... no checking ktoblzcheck.h usability... no checking ktoblzcheck.h presence... no checking for ktoblzcheck.h... no 3. According to the COPYING file: "The banking backend "AqYellowNet" is currently only available binary-only because of a nondisclosure agreement." So, should this code just be removed from the source package entirely? I don't think it's being shipped/linked, but the .so is still in the source. 4. rpmlint says: a) E: aqbanking obsolete-not-provided aqhbci E: aqbanking-devel obsolete-not-provided aqhbci-devel E: qbanking obsolete-not-provided aqhbci-qt-tools Suggest: As mentioned earlier in this review, these can probibly be ignored if it's unlikely that these packages will ever come back at a later time. b) E: aqbanking zero-length /usr/share/aqbanking/bankinfo/us/bic.idx E: aqbanking-devel zero-length /usr/share/doc/aqbanking-devel-2.1.0/01-OVERVIEW Suggest: Could possibly remove these? Or ping upstream about it. c) W: g2banking no-documentation W: g2banking-devel no-documentation W: kbanking no-documentation W: kbanking-devel no-documentation W: python-aqbanking no-documentation W: qbanking no-documentation W: qbanking-devel no-documentation Suggest: ignore. 5. Minor: use dist tag? 6. This is an old version... upstream is at 2.2.8. Any reason not to upgrade to that version? 7. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at the multilib conflicts and see if they are solveable at this time? -- 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