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: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-13 19:01 EST ------- MUST Items: + rpmlint output OK: SRPM, soprano, soprano-debuginfo produce no warnings W: soprano-devel no-documentation - see "relevant documentation" below + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: + License LGPL OK, matches actual license + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters ! relevant documentation is included While the minimum documentation is present, the upstream package also supports generating Doxygen documentation, which would be useful to package (in a -apidocs subpackage). + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake macro) + debuginfo package is valid + no static libraries nor .la files + no duplicated system libraries + no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the shared objects) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + _smp_mflags used + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines + COPYING included as %doc + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + source matches upstream: MD5SUM: 703f11ca18f50c500b62cd44c84145e5 SHA1SUM: df2179aa29eb1a7d4d21e82ef94699dfc497f388 + builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + all build dependencies listed in CMakeLists.txt are listed in BuildRequires (However, an additional BuildRequires: doxygen will be needed for the -apidocs.) + no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions set properly + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + %doc files not required at runtime + all header files in -devel + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + /usr/lib/*.so symlink is correctly in -devel + /usr/lib/soprano/*.so plugin (NOT a symlink) is correctly NOT in -devel + -devel requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + no .la files + no GUI programs (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install But I strongly recommend a: mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after the: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to prevent a potential symlink attack as pointed out by the OpenSUSE folks. + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream ! I get a weird error in mock (tested FC6 i386 with Plague results and Rawhide i386, both on F7 build host): + %cmake . /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20248: line 28: fg: no job control error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20248 (%build) I don't know if this is my fault or if something's screwed in your package or the %cmake macro. * Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386. * Can't really test that the package functions as described without building some KDE 4 stuff against it first, skipping for now. + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies I see no real blockers except the strange error in mock. Thus, consider this APPROVED if you can get it to build in mock. However: 1. It would be useful to package the Doxygen documentation: * add BuildRequires: doxygen * create an -apidocs subpackage 2. I'd also suggest adding the mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. -- 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