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: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-08 16:50 EST ------- rpmlint has some complaints: This just looks like a typo in the changelog: W: g-wrap incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.9.6-10 1.9.6-9 I'm not really sure about these: W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-standard.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 W: g-wrap unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 I don't think they're especially problematic and I guess it's possible that they're necessary. I admit I find it odd to see /usr/lib64/g-wrap/include/ffi.h: E: g-wrap-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Why not /usr/share/g-wrap, or with the rest of the installed headers in /usr/include/g-wrap? Seems to me that the license is LGPL, not GPL. The libffi license seems to be MIT but that's compatible and doesn't change the overall license of the package. I note that there is a test suite, but some notes about it being disabled on x86_64. I tried a quick "make check" on i386 rawhide and all the tests failed without attempting to actually test anything, so I must be missing something. Review: * source files match upstream: ddb0e31d40581402d6d7045cce7cdc79e0bc0627831a4b12012f45703446d311 g-wrap-1.9.6.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. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. O latest version is 1.9.8, but there are issues preventing its use. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: g-wrap-1.9.6-9.x86_64.rpm libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit) libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit) g-wrap = 1.9.6-9 = /sbin/ldconfig guile libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libguile.so.17()(64bit) libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit) libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) g-wrap-devel-1.9.6-9.x86_64.rpm g-wrap-devel = 1.9.6-9 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info g-wrap = 1.9.6 guile-devel libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0()(64bit) libgw-guile-standard.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-core-runtime.so.0()(64bit) libgwrap-guile-runtime.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present. Test suite doesn't seem to do much. * shared libraries present; ldconfig called as appropriate. * 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. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig, install-info). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * a pkgconfig file is present in -devel; pkgconfig dependency is there. * 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