[Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement

[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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ASSIGNED




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-17 14:24 EST -------
For some reason this package stopped showing up on my bugzilla front page;
I have no idea why.  Perhaps because the status went to MODIFIED instead
of ASSIGNED?

Anyway, this builds fine now and as you say has only the four rpmlint
unversioned-explicit-provides warnings.  The thing is, these
Obsoletes/Provides pairs have been in cdrtools since FC-1.  The need for
these in order to provide a clean upgrade path has long since passed, and
they should just go away.  (Current policy is to keep such Obsoletes
around for a maximum of three releases.)

So given that, why not just remove them entirely?

Some other issues:
I note you don't use %{dist}.  I generally recommend it because it makes
it easy to maintain one specfile across multiple releases, but ultimately
it's up to you.  (Not a blocker.)

The build root should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

The COPYING file gets into the wodim package, but the other packages which
have essentially unrelated names don't get a copy.  This seems bothersome to
me, but I'm not sure if it's really an issue.

I can't tell what cflags are in effect at build time.  I don't see anything
that sets them, and given that the debuginfo package is busted I'm assuming
that something's not right.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   03a4e80718704e79b50a285b0aac928a3820c5b3c1df028478aa68fe884b7d0d
   cdrkit-1.1.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O dist tag is not present.
X build root is incorrect.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
? License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary).
? compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  genisoimage-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm
   cdrecord-mkisofs
   mkisofs = 9:2.01-10.1
   genisoimage = 1.1.2-1
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/perl
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   perl >= 4:5.8.1
   perl(Cwd)
   perl(File::Basename)
   perl(File::Path)
   perl(Getopt::Long)
   perl(List::Util)
   perl(strict)

  icedax-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm
   cdda2wav = 9:2.01-10.1
   cdrecord-cdda2wav
   icedax = 1.1.2-1
  =
   /bin/sh

  wodim-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm
   cdrecord = 9:2.01-10.1
   dvdrecord = 0:0.1.5.1
   wodim = 1.1.2-1
  =
   libcap.so.1()(64bit)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* 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.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.