[Bug 214087] Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Dec 28 17:52:40 UTC 2006


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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087


mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-12-28 12:52 EST -------
Well, this package is okay.

      This package (libextractor) is APPROVED by me
--------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS (none of the following two are blockers)
-  I recommend to add your name to README.fedora
-  My opinion is 
--------------------------------------------------
/etc/alternatives/libextractor_thumbnail
/usr/lib/libextractor/plugins/ibextractor-thumbnail.so
--------------------------------------------------
   should be owned as ghost files by -thumbnailgtk and
   -thumbnailqt packages, however, currently no other
   package own /etc/alternatives/* files nor alternate
   link files. How do you think??

NOTES
A. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
= Naming okay
= Legal okay
  - GPL (OSI approved)
  - Documentation included
  - Actually coincide with source code license
  - No patent-related issue
= Filesystem Layout okay
= rpmlint -- not silent, however all can be ignored
= Changelog proper
= Tag okay
= Buildroot okay (although not a format of "recommended")
= Requires - not needed but for ones automatically checked
  by rpmbuild
= BuildRequires - mockbuild okay
= Summary/Description okay
= Documentation - all files which should be included
  are all included actually
= Mockbuild says Fedora specific compilation flags are passed
= No static archives/la files
= No use of local copy of system libraries
= rpm -qa libextractor\* | xargs rpm -ql | xargs /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker 
  does not complain
= No config file
= This is not GUI package
= Macros are correctly handled
= No mixed usage of %buildroot <-> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
= %makeinstall not used
= proper %find_lang usage
= Timestamps okay
= Parallel make intentionally disabled
= Scriptlets: ... okay
  - ldconfig
  - alternatives
= Relocation disabled
= Ownership okay
= Not web apps, /var/www is not used

B. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
= Source download okay
= md5sum coincide
= No duplicate files description
= %clean section okay
= -doc subpackage not needed
= -devel package okay
= Requires ... as discussed
= BuildRequires okay

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list