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: libitl - Libraries for The Islamic Tools and Libraries Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431181 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-02 00:34 EST ------- Builds OK and rpmlint is clean. Some comments: It seems that you have no choice but to run the autotools since upstream does not ship generated copies, but you should ask upstream to do this before creating your tarball. Otherwise there could be problems when the version of Fedora's autotools doesn't match what upstream expects to use. I do not see where the license version is specified. The source files seem to say "under LGPL license" but do not specify a version. The included COPYING file says only that you can use any version ever published in this case. So instead of LGPLv2 as you have, I think the license tag should be LGPLv2+. See this text from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing: ---- A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. ---- The unversioned .so file needs to be in the -devel package. This package installs a library into /usr/lib/itl but doesn't configure the linker to look into that directory. I haven't yet looked at the packages which use this library, but I'm not sure how that can work unless they open this library with dlopen() or they use rpath (which they probably shouldn't). In any case, the ldconfig calls are pointless in this case because they will not find the libraries you have added. Is there some reason this library needs to be in its own, separate directory? * source files match upstream: 169b03cf9a9d6c07ff49055666891562ae21256751c32a5ec99dfa4b574679af libitl-0.6.4.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. X license field does not match 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libitl-0.6.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libitl.so.0()(64bit) libitl = 0.6.4-1.fc9 = /sbin/ldconfig libitl.so.0()(64bit) libitl-devel-0.6.4-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libitl-devel = 0.6.4-1.fc9 = libitl = 0.6.4-1.fc9 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. ? a shared library is installed, but not into a standard location; a call to ldconfig is pointless in this case. X unversioned .so files should be in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * 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