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: libxcb - C language binding to the X11 protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246287 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-02 23:53 EST ------- Now that xcb-proto is done, I can take a look at this. It builds fine and rpmlint only says W: libxcb-devel no-documentation which is not an issue. Actually I'm not sure about the point of the -doc package; it has only three files which are already in the main package. Review: * source files match upstream: 19d6b2ac380fd3e613a3730e791f197f186f940bffec97f8a4f9443bb727d11d libxcb-1.0.tar.bz2 * 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: libxcb-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb = 1.0-1.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libXau.so.6()(64bit) libXdmcp.so.6()(64bit) libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-devel-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm libxcb-devel = 1.0-1.fc8 = libxcb = 1.0-1.fc8 libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-damage.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-dpms.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-glx.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-record.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-res.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-screensaver.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-shape.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-shm.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-sync.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xevie.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xf86dri.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xlib.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xprint.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xtest.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xv.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xvmc.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig libxcb-doc-1.0-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm libxcb-doc = 1.0-1.fc8 = * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared present; ldconfig called as necessary. Unversioned .so files are in the -debug package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X documentation files are duplicated in -doc package. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package; 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 on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review