[Bug 188207] Review Request: esdl - SDL bindings for Erlang

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: esdl - SDL bindings for Erlang


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188207





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-25 10:47 EST -------
I'll work on the assumption that you'll remove the Provides: from the next version.

The package builds fine; I even learned a bit about erlang so that I could
install and test it.  Unfortunately there are a few problems.  The only thing I
think is blocking is the errant provide of sdl_driver.so, although I'd like to
know what's up with the debuginfo RPM.

rpmlint says:
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_util.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_audio.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_wrapper.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_glext.h
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_glu.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_gen.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_glext.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl.h
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_driver.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_spec.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_video.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_events.c
E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_gl.c

I have no idea what it's on about here, or why RPM would choose to put copies of
development files into the debuginfo RPM.  I'm not inclined to hold up inclusion
of this package because of this, 

E: erlang-esdl-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

This is ignorable.

Issues:
The license 2-clause BSD like with an added section indicating what rights the
US government gets (and also indicating that this doesn't limit anyone's
rights).  To me it seems clearly free; someone might want to look over it and
decide whether there a better license tag for this than "Distributable", but I
don't see this as a blocker.

The final package provides sdl_driver.so, but I'm not sure that it should since
that library is buried in /usr/lib/erlang/lib/esdl-0.95.0630/priv/.  What's your
opinion here?  Note that this also ends up in the -debuginfo package's provide
list, and I'm not sure it's even possible to filter it.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O license field is "Distributable", which is an accurate description.  License
text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   e892f64e9c5f6eca037757e5c38667ce  esdl-0.95.0630.src.tar.gz
   e892f64e9c5f6eca037757e5c38667ce  esdl-0.95.0630.src.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, i386 and x86_64).
O rpmlint complains; see above.
X final provides list is not completely sane.
* shared libraries are present, but not in any of the linker's paths so there's
no need to call ldconfig.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check is not present; the tests are graphical in nature.  I ran them myself
to ensure that the package built correctly.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers and included C source files are in a -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.