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=470173 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |182235 AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-07 19:14:44 EDT --- I'm seeing several issues with this package. The COPYING file contains v2 of the GPL, but the code itself does not specify a version. Their web site indicates GPLv2+, but I do not know if the web site is a sufficient statement of intent. According to the licensing FAQ, the web site isn't consulted about this. Blocking FE-Legal for a ruling. The "testsuite" directory would seem to include a test suite. Is it possible to run it at build time? If so, it needs to be run unless there's a compelling reason not to do so. A shared library is installed but ldconfig is not called. In addition, this package seems to have a rather odd library versioning convention. The usual method is to have the library version after the ".so" but this package has it before. I'm afraid I don't understand why it would be doing this differently than almost all other libraries. The static library is not permitted in the -devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries This is the "static libraries and shared libraries" case. rpmlint says only: m4ri-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation which is fine. * source files match upstream: 6e30b50b74c72ceca431461d471e38f682d7a6ad1c2d07db28806fff1d3e30e8 m4ri-20081028.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. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %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: m4ri-20081028-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm libm4ri-0.0.20081029.so()(64bit) m4ri = 20081028-2.fc10 m4ri(x86-64) = 20081028-2.fc10 = m4ri-devel-20081028-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm m4ri-static = 20081028-2.fc10 m4ri-devel = 20081028-2.fc10 m4ri-devel(x86-64) = 20081028-2.fc10 = libm4ri-0.0.20081029.so()(64bit) m4ri = 20081028-2.fc10 X %check is not present but a test suite seems to exist. X shared libraries are installed but ldconfig is not called. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * 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. * no pkgconfig files. X static libraries are in the -devel package. * 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