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: xesam-glib - A GObject library for dealing with Xesam services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446158 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: xesam-glib -|Review Request: xesam-glib - |A GObject library for |A GObject library for |dealing with Xesam services |dealing with Xesam services Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-25 16:35 EST ------- I have absolutely no idea what Xesam is; could you at least define it in your %description? I would suggest using http://xesam.org/people/kamstrup/xesam-glib/ as your URL: tag; this at least has some information on the package. rpmlint is quiet except for the following: xesam-glib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxesam-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 This means that the libxesam-glib links against libdbus-1 but doesn't actually call any functions from it. There's a quick libtool tweak that should fix this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CommonRpmlintIssues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency I note that 0.3 is out now; I don't see anything that would change this review. I also noticed that there's a test suite in the source. A naive "make check" didn't work for me, though. Have you looked into whether or not it's runnable? * source files match upstream: 8fde51fd248f9215d78c366d5827e39826b2c09007398a05962f4d1d7ab32efd xesam-glib-0.2.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description could use a definition of Xesam. * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has an issue that should be looked into. * final provides and requires are sane: xesam-glib-0.2.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libxesam-glib.so.0()(64bit) xesam-glib = 0.2.1-1.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libxesam-glib.so.0()(64bit) xesam-glib-devel-0.2.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm xesam-glib-devel = 0.2.1-1.fc10 = dbus-glib-devel libxesam-glib.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig xesam-glib = 0.2.1-1.fc10 X %check is not present, but some sort of test suite is in the tarball. * shared libraries installed: ldconfig called properly. unversioned .so files are 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. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig). * 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. * pkgconfig file in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is present. * 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