Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457160 --- Comment #4 from Paul F. Kunz <paulfkunz@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-25 13:01:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > zorba.review.txt: > Hi, you don't seem to be sponsored, so I can't perform an official review. > Instead, I can get the review process started with a pre-review. Have you > requested a fedoraproject account ? I have an account. It is pfkeb. I recently changed my e-mail contact from paul_kunz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to paulfkunz@xxxxxxxxxx > [??] -devel include shows %name/%name/* . Is this what was intended, why ? This is the way the upstream installs itself. I agree it is a little strange. > > [??] are the .TAGFILEs needed by an end user of devel-docs ? Perhaps they are a > side result of the compile process ? They come from Doxygen. If the end user wants to link his Doxygen generated documentation to Zorba's locally then he needs them. > > [??] license is Apache license v2 from web site. extracted upstream source > mentions "the Apache License" more than 700 times. The short name "APL 2.0" is > the correct fedora reference. > I put the correct Fedora reference in the spec file. > [??] NOTICE.txt also provides some license information / history. I haven't > analysed whether the license would be considered free for Fedora purposes. Have > each of the authors mentioned > I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. > [??] devel-doc is created as a separate package. It isn't overly large, and > could potentially be part of the -devel package ? What reasoning caused you to > split the devel-docs out ? > I've removed devel-docs subpackage. > [??] spec legible: > - could be improved by sticking to a certain coding style within the spec with > relation to eg 2x blank lines between sections, rather than 0 or 1. > - the files section has one layout for some subpackages, and different spacing > for the last ones. > I've taken you suggestions. Thanks, it does look better. > [ ?] might as well fix the spelling of grammer and headerss ! > Ran the spell checker on the spec file and fixed the errors. > [ ?] while individually specifying each %files to include can be done, would it > be simpler to glob the folders instead (or have you already factored this in) ? > Good suggestion and done. > [??] python guidelines suggest placing python_sitelib determination at the top > of the spec. Any reason to do it elsewhere ? > its been moved. > [??] places files directly in the %{python_sitelib}, rather than a module named > subfolder. Not sure if that is allowed ? > I've seen it done both ways. Generally, when the package contains multiiple files and subdirectory is used. However, zorba has only two files. > [??] -python doesn't require the base package. Is there a reason why ? > Was oversigth. Now fixed. > [??] why put the *.py*, *.gif, *.rb examples in the python/ruby sub packages. > Would these be more appropriate for the devel-doc package ? > Fixed. > [??] %build turns on debug output. I don't know whether that is allowed in the > final package ? > Yes this is allowed. The debugging symbols are stripped and put in zorba-debuginfo rpm. > [ x] rpmlint problems: rpmlint zorba-0.9.21-2.fc9.src.rpm I added the attr tag. > [ x] doesn't build on i386. Is a build require missing ? Perhaps need to try > one of the methods to help determine build requires at: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequire I tried that procedure but it didn't work for me. Nevertheless I found additional requires that needed to be added. > > [ x] doesn't own all the dirs it creates: > %dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} is the dir only > the subfolders c, cxx, zorba, python ruby aren't owned {I could be wrong here, > since it won't build}. Fixed. > > [ x] unversioned .so must be in the -devel package > moved it. > > [ x] package provides .sos in normal lib dir, but doesn't use the guideline > must %post/un -p /sbin/ldconfig > Added it. > [ x] clean rm -rf is commented out. Why has this been done ? I don't think it > could make it into Fedora like this. > Was commented out for debugging, now put back in. > [ x] not all %files sections include the %defattr() > Fixed. > [ x] main package doc files are not marked as %doc. I assume they aren't > required for the executable to run. > Correct. > [ x] LICENSE.txt is included in source, and hence must be included in package, > but is not marked %doc > Fixed. > [ x] -python summary line is repeated under description > fixed. > [ x] -ruby package must indicate the required Ruby ABI version > Done. > [ x] -ruby library must indicate what it provides with a Provides: > ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION > Isn't this done automatically because of the .so file > [ x] must bump release with each adjustment of the package. This provides > tracability, and ensures an update path. > Done. > You don't appear to have begun the fedoraproject account creation process. My account if pfkeb >Note > the email you use there should be the one used in the changlelog as well. I > also notice that you are an upstream contributor. What applications are using > zorba so far ? Fixed for recent change log entries. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review