[Bug 240287] Review Request: muParser - A fast math parser library

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

 



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: muParser  - A fast math parser library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240287





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2007-06-03 01:46 EST -------
Looks much better; rpmlint now shows the following:

E: muParser no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
   Indeed, the buildroot isn't cleaned; you should have 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' 
   at the beginning of %install.
W: muParser mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 1)
   Well, the Group: line is indented with spaces while the others are indented 
   with tabs, but this warning is little more than annoyance.  Fix it if you 
   like.

I note that the documentation indicates that pkgconfig files should be installed
and a .pc file is created during the build, but I don't see it in the final
package.  I think this is because you don't call the install Makefile target,
which contains:
   $(INSTALL_DATA) build/autoconf/muparser.pc $(libdir)/pkgconfig
This needs to be installed as it's part of the expected API of the library.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   b37a479257e5733f58011709b2640c01d5519645e6385426ce696d5fa1ff58bc  
   muparser_v127.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libmuparser.so.0()(64bit)
   muParser = 1.27-2.fc7
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libmuparser.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries installed; ldconfig called appropriately.
* unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* most documentation is in the -devel package.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.
X no pkgconfig files (but there should be)
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]