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: grib_api - ECMWF encoding/decoding GRIB software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427121 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-22 20:18 EST ------- Builds OK; rpmlint has many complaints about the .sh files in the documentation being executable, for example: grib_api-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/grib_api-devel-1.3.0/examples/precision_fortran.sh which, though I don't like executable documentation in general, I suppose are OK as long as they don't generate additional dependencies. (They don't seem to do so.) Also, grib_api-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/grib_api-devel-1.3.0/data/missing_new.grib2 which I guess is used by one of the examples and needs to be empty (although you should verify this; we don't really want to be shipping empty files unless there's some reason for it). You should use a complete URL for Source0; this seems to work: http://www.ecmwf.int/products/data/software/download/software_files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz I note that 1.4.0 is out; did you want to update to it? A naive update fails to build because __dist_doc seems to have been changed a bit. I believe the software is LGPLv3; that's what the upstream web site says, and the LICENSE and source files seem to agree: * Licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License which * incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU * General Public License. although that language is kind of bizarre and they also package a copy of the GPLv3 (and a second copy of LGPLv3 for good measure, I guess) all in the top-level directory of the tarball. Can you check with upstream to see if they intend one or the other? Without clarification from them I am inclined to say that LGPLv3 is correct. The API documentation is about 70% of the -devel package, but I don't think that's big enough to warrant splitting the package. * source files match upstream: 36f31407f0c4aa64991f65f5d362d2b3efd986ea25b0d8f214772b21665a170b grib_api-1.3.0.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 (although some definition of "grib" might be considered to be kind to the users. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. X 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 has one complaint which may be valid. * final provides and requires are sane: grib_api-1.3.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm grib_api = 1.3.0-1.fc9 = libjasper.so.1()(64bit) grib_api-devel-1.3.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm grib_api-static = 1.3.0-1.fc9 grib_api-devel = 1.3.0-1.fc9 = /bin/sh grib_api = 1.3.0-1.fc9 * %check is present and all tests pass: All 19 tests passed All 14 tests passed * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries are in the -devel package, which is OK because there are no dynamic libraries provided. The -static provide is present as required. * 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