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: sofia-sip - Sofia SIP User-Agent library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222475 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-29 20:27 EST ------- Yep, that gets rid of them. Now we're down to these: W: sofia-sip-glib no-documentation W: sofia-sip unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua.so.0.5.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: sofia-sip unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua.so.0.5.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libssl.so.6 W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.6 W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 W: sofia-sip-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 All of which are OK. It might be nice to define SIP in your %description. What are the .h.in files for? You include them explicitly so I assume they must be necessary. I really don't see anything at this point which should hold this up any longer. Review: * source files match upstream: 23c7e50b5c68bce65b80ca30e2dd7797e8ca7d4627dca9513a9a2d3f459ed445 sofia-sip-1.12.6.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. * 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. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: sofia-sip-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit) sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) sofia-sip-devel-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm sofia-sip-devel = 1.12.6-3.fc8 = /usr/bin/env libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8 sofia-sip-glib-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit) sofia-sip-glib = 1.12.6-3.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit) libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8 sofia-sip-glib-devel-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm sofia-sip-glib-devel = 1.12.6-3.fc8 = libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit) pkgconfig sofia-sip-devel = 1.12.6-3.fc8 sofia-sip-glib = 1.12.6-3.fc8 sofia-sip-utils-1.12.6-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm sofia-sip-utils = 1.12.6-3.fc8 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) sofia-sip = 1.12.6-3.fc8 * %check is present and all tests pass: All 14 tests passed * ldconfig is called as appropriate for the two packages which install shared libs. Unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackages. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig calls) * 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 subpackages. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel packages, which have the proper pkgconfig dependencies. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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