[Bug 370751] Review Request: ggz-client-libs - Client libraries for GGZ gaming zone

[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: ggz-client-libs - Client libraries for GGZ gaming zone


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370751





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-11-14 01:12 EST -------
Well, that worked fine.  Do you still need automake and libtool given that
you're just patching the existing configure file?

Picky, I know, but the ggz-config executable seems to be GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+. 
Probably an oversight by upstream byt annoying nonetheless.  Also, the manpage
for ggz-config should probably be with the ggz-config executable in the devel
subpackage.

There are also several other source files in the tarball that are GPL and not
LGPL (ggzmod-ggz.c, io-ggz.c, ggzwrap.c, game.c, ggz-wrapper.c, loop.c,
server.c).  I'm not really sure that the end result can be LGPL, even though
that's what's in the COPYING file.

I'm a little confused about the ggzwrap executable and it being located in
/usr/lib(64)/ggz.  This package already packages binaries in /usr/bin, so why
have /usr/bin/ggz-wrapper but /usr/lib64/ggz/ggzwrap?  And there is the larger
question of why there are executables at all in the -libs package.  Won't this
cause issues with multilib?

rpmlint says:
  ggz-client-libs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/ggz.menu
  ggz-client-libs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc 
   /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/ggz.merge.menu
both of which are OK as far as I know.


* source files match upstream:
   a2ad93d5158bbe687275cc3ded1379bd2ae6f0463e4fe785cda0fdcf01af8a04  
   ggz-client-libs-0.0.14.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 (automake and libtool needed?)
* 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:
  ggz-client-libs-0.0.14-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   libggzcore.so.9()(64bit)
   libggzmod.so.4()(64bit)
   ggz-client-libs = 0.0.14-3.fc9
  =
   /bin/bash
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libexpat.so.1()(64bit)
   libggz.so.2()(64bit)
   libggzcore.so.9()(64bit)
   libggzmod.so.4()(64bit)

  ggz-client-libs-devel-0.0.14-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   ggz-client-libs-devel = 0.0.14-3.fc9
  =
   ggz-client-libs = 0.0.14-3.fc9
   libggz.so.2()(64bit)
   libggzcore.so.9()(64bit)
   libggzmod.so.4()(64bit)

* shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly.
* unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* 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, or are watching someone who is.