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: libgtop2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226026 mszpak@xxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproje | |ct.org) ------- Additional Comments From mszpak@xxxxx 2007-03-03 13:20 EST ------- That's my first review of someone's else package so please be understanding and make your suggestions to my review. REVIEW: - rpmlint reports warning (see below) + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license GPL, inlcuded in %doc + md5sum matches upstream - BuildRequires - suggestions below + locales OK + ldconfig in %post and %postun + no problems with directories + no duplicates in %files + %defattr is set + %clean section looks good + macros are used + headres in -devel + .la files removed + pkgconfig in Requires (due to .pc files) - not clear build options (see below) THINGS: rpmlint warings: W: libgtop2 summary-not-capitalized libgtop library (version 2) W: libgtop2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 7) Summary sections SHOULD be extended. "libgtop library (version 2)" doesn't say too much for most people. BuildRequires: texinfo doesn't seem to be required (in my opinion) and SHOULD be removed. info file is created without it (and is deleted anyway by a command in spec file). texinfo depends on several other packages. gtk-doc package won't be needed in gtk-doc files are not intended (see below) building: gtk-doc files are created despite of the option --disable-gtk-doc in configure. It could be problem with upstream. I'm not sure if gtk-doc are intended or not because in %files section there is "%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/libgtop". In libgtop2-devel for FC5 there are not that files. In FC7 they are. When gtk-doc is not available in a system libgtop is built without them, so if those files are not needed gtk-doc (depends on several other packages) could be removed from BuildRequires list (if the next point was changed). In SRPMS there is a patch (libgtop-2.0.2-prog_as.patch) which adds "AM_PROG_AS" to configure.in. I'm not an expert of automake, but I'm not sure if it's required, because without it libgtop2 builds just fine. Maybe it was required only in libgtop-2.0.x series? This patch has also one side effect. Because it changes configure.in configure script has to be rebuilt and to do that gtk-doc is required (which wouldn't be omited if gtk-doc's files are not intended to be in a package). Btw, I changed status to NEEDINFO from Assignee (should be the owner of a package), but I'm not sure about that status. -- 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