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: exempi - Library for easy parsing of XMP metadata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249125 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-29 13:44 EST ------- I have to admit that I have no idea what this package does, and no way to test it as it's a library that has no test suite. But it's a simple and clean package, so... rpmlint says: W: exempi unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexempi.so.2.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 It links against libm (which seems to be the default for autoconf packages) but doesn't call any functions from it. I don't see this as a really big deal. W: exempi-devel no-documentation Not a problem. I guess it would be nice if there were some programming information included, but it's not your responsibility to produce it. Review: * source files match upstream: f1783d5a85ec81cb3a7be3ce24fd2178e1acbc5229c719c1496160d62f57a104 exempi-1.99.3.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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: exempi-1.99.3-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm libexempi.so.2()(64bit) exempi = 1.99.3-1.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libexempi.so.2()(64bit) libexpat.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) exempi-devel-1.99.3-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm exempi-devel = 1.99.3-1.fc8 = exempi = 1.99.3-1.fc8 libexempi.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present; ldconfig is called as necessary and unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * 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) * 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. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel subpackage; pkgconfig dependency is there. * 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 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