[Bug 459874] Review Request: zeromq - Fast messaging system

[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=459874





--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-11-06 22:08:27 EDT ---
I note that 0.3.2 isn't announced upstream, just 0.3.1.  0.3.3 seems to be
tagged as well but I didn't see a tarball.

The descriptions really need some elaboration.  "Development files for C", for
example, is almost completely nondescriptive, and "Fast messaging system",
while fine for a summary, really needs elaboration because it could refer just
as well to mutt or an IRC client.  Unfortunately the upstream web site is
completely useless as a source of descriptive text.   Maybe:
  ZeroMQ (0MQ) is an implementation of the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol 
  (AMQP) written in C++, calling itself "the fastest messaging system ever”.
And then something like:
  ZeroMQ C interface libaries.
or something for the C subpackage and
  Development files for the ZeroMQ C interface libraries.

Is there any reason the python and java interfaces aren't built?  And if the
python interface isn't being built, why is there a build dependency on
python-devel?

Maybe I'm missing something, but zeromq-c-devel doesn't seem to have any
dependency on zeromq-devel, which leaves /usr/include/zmq unowned if
zeromq-c-devel only is installed.

Do you know if the tests under the perf directory are runnable at build time? 
It seems like there are some local tests, but I have no idea how to run them.

* source files match upstream:
   d11291730967f91762bfdbf7352871ba20fddffe8eead1a66e96cd1053f47eab  
   zmq-0.3.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X summaries could use some work.
X descriptions could use some work.
* 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.
? not sure about BuildRequires: python-devel.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has some easily fixed complaints.
X final provides and requires:
  zeromq-0.3.2-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
   zeromq = 0.3.2-1.fc10
   zeromq(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libzmq.so.0()(64bit)

  zeromq-c-0.3.2-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libczmq.so.0()(64bit)
   zeromq-c = 0.3.2-1.fc10
   zeromq-c(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libczmq.so.0()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
   zeromq = 0.3.2-1.fc10
X  no dependency on zeromq-devel

  zeromq-c-devel-0.3.2-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   zeromq-c-devel = 0.3.2-1.fc10
   zeromq-c-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc10
  =
   libczmq.so.0()(64bit)
   zeromq-c = 0.3.2-1.fc10

  zeromq-devel-0.3.2-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   zeromq-devel = 0.3.2-1.fc10
   zeromq-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc10
  =
   libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
   zeromq = 0.3.2-1.fc10

? not sure if there's a test suite there or not.
* shared libraries installed:
   ldconfig is called where necessary
   unversioned .so files are present in the respective -devel packages.
X /usr/include/zmq ownership issues in zeromq-c-devel.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are 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 packages.
* no pkgconfig files.
* 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.

_______________________________________________
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]