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: ggz-client-libs - Client libraries for GGZ gaming zone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370751 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-14 01:12 EST ------- Well, that worked fine. Do you still need automake and libtool given that you're just patching the existing configure file? Picky, I know, but the ggz-config executable seems to be GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+. Probably an oversight by upstream byt annoying nonetheless. Also, the manpage for ggz-config should probably be with the ggz-config executable in the devel subpackage. There are also several other source files in the tarball that are GPL and not LGPL (ggzmod-ggz.c, io-ggz.c, ggzwrap.c, game.c, ggz-wrapper.c, loop.c, server.c). I'm not really sure that the end result can be LGPL, even though that's what's in the COPYING file. I'm a little confused about the ggzwrap executable and it being located in /usr/lib(64)/ggz. This package already packages binaries in /usr/bin, so why have /usr/bin/ggz-wrapper but /usr/lib64/ggz/ggzwrap? And there is the larger question of why there are executables at all in the -libs package. Won't this cause issues with multilib? rpmlint says: ggz-client-libs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/ggz.menu ggz-client-libs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/ggz.merge.menu both of which are OK as far as I know. * source files match upstream: a2ad93d5158bbe687275cc3ded1379bd2ae6f0463e4fe785cda0fdcf01af8a04 ggz-client-libs-0.0.14.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 (automake and libtool needed?) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints * final provides and requires are sane: ggz-client-libs-0.0.14-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm libggzcore.so.9()(64bit) libggzmod.so.4()(64bit) ggz-client-libs = 0.0.14-3.fc9 = /bin/bash /sbin/ldconfig libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libggz.so.2()(64bit) libggzcore.so.9()(64bit) libggzmod.so.4()(64bit) ggz-client-libs-devel-0.0.14-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm ggz-client-libs-devel = 0.0.14-3.fc9 = ggz-client-libs = 0.0.14-3.fc9 libggz.so.2()(64bit) libggzcore.so.9()(64bit) libggzmod.so.4()(64bit) * shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly. * 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. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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