[Bug 457263] Review Request: liblayout - positioning library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=457263


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx




--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-09-04 23:59:25 EDT ---
I'm not sure what's happening with this.  It's still NEW and the fedora-review
flag is unset.   It's assigned to Mattias, but the last comment from him was
four weeks ago.

I know that Caolan had a whole pile of interdependent packages he was trying to
get in and at the top they all seem to block F10DesktopBlocker (which I guess
is problematic given that the freeze is here).  I'd like to help finish things
up but the ambiguous state of this ticket gets in the way.  Here are my
comments:

In addition to the above rpmlint complaint, which I agree is bogus, there's
only the following:
  liblayout-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
which can also be ignored as we don't care what goes in Group:.

I went ahead and did a complete review below.  I would approve this package
as-is but I don't know what Mattias had in mind.

* source files match upstream:
   b4d80439fb820aebef249aa8f1570e849518c7b19fbd5cd40336a18343524543  
   liblayout-0.2.9.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summaries are OK.
* descriptions are OK.
* 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.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  liblayout-0.2.9-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   liblayout.jar.so()(64bit)
   liblayout = 0.2.9-1.fc10
   liblayout(x86-64) = 0.2.9-1.fc10
  =
   /bin/sh
   flute
   java
   java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31
   jcommon
   jpackage-utils
   libfonts >= 0.3.4
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit)
   libloader >= 0.3.7
   librepository >= 0.1.6
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   pentaho-libxml
   sac
   xml-commons-apis

  liblayout-javadoc-0.2.9-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   liblayout-javadoc = 0.2.9-1.fc10
   liblayout-javadoc(x86-64) = 0.2.9-1.fc10
  =
   jpackage-utils
   liblayout = 0.2.9-1.fc10

* %check is not present; no test suite (as far as I can tell).  I have no way
to 
   test this.
* 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.
* scriptlets are OK (rebuild-gcj-db).
* no pre-built jars
* single jar, named after the package
* jarfiles are under _javadir.
* javadocs are under _javadocdir.
* ant called properly.
* gcj called properly.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]