[Bug 1100925] Review Request: librevenge - a base library for writing document import filters

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100925



--- Comment #5 from David Tardon <dtardon@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3)
> - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
> -> I don't know what happens..

Nonsense. There is no such BR.

> 
> - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
> -> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency

readelf -d
review-librevenge/rpms-unpacked/librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/librevenge-0.0.so.0
| grep NEEDED
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libstdc++.so.6]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libm.so.6]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libc.so.6]
 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED)             Shared library: [libgcc_s.so.1]

I do not see any explicit dependency on librevenge-generators... And I do not
see libm.so.6 as a problem, as libstdc++.so.6 already needs it anyway.

> 
> - GPL (v3 or later)
> - -----------------
> - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-0.0.py
> - librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-stream-0.0.py
> -> I think you forget to add this license to list. Probably you should
> replace LGPLv2+ with GPLv3+ or something

This is apparently checked on unpatched tarball. Patch1 changes these licenses
to MPLv2.0/LGPLv2+. (I adapted the pretty printers code from another project of
mine and forgot to change the licenses originally.)

> 
> - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
> -> there no links. could you provide it ? If no - sent to upstream. NOT
> BLOCKER.

These patches come from upstream.

> 
> - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
> -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT
> BLOCKER.

I do not call install manually anywhere...

> 
> - Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb

libstdc++ owns this on my system.

> -> I think for -devel subpackage should be Requires: libstdc++

libstdc++ is already required through librevenge.

> - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>      Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto-
>      load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb),
>      /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++)
> -> do not own this dirs. it will be owned by libstdc++. own only files in
> this directories

All right, removed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]