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: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452921 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 00:14 EST ------- I guess those rpmlint complaints boil down to; No docs for the -devel package. NEWS is executable. A couple of source files are executable, which makes rpmlint complain about the debuginfo package. These: libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0 libzrtpcpp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 aren't a serious issue but again it's a one line sed call to tweak libtool to make them go away. These are really trivial fixes and the unused-direct-shlib-dependency isn't really a blocker, so I'll trust you to do what's best when you check in. * source files match upstream: 5b4e5a439543541a041f68f30c203180198e3ced2d6df488ab1390be6d383cfc libzrtpcpp-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. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. The source files have a number of licenses (GPLv3+, GPLv2+ and what looks like an MIT variant) but the final product seems to be GPLv3+. * 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 a few valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libzrtpcpp-1.3.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0()(64bit) libzrtpcpp = 1.3.0-1.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig libccgnu2-1.6.so.0()(64bit) libccrtp1-1.6.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2)(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0()(64bit) libzrtpcpp-devel-1.3.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libzrtpcpp-devel = 1.3.0-1.fc10 = libzrtpcpp = 1.3.0-1.fc10 libzrtpcpp-1.3.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I've no idea how to test this. * shared libraries installed: unversioned .so links are in the -devel package. ldconfig is called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (pkgconfig). * 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 files in the -devel package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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