[Bug 439100] Review Request: octaviz - 3D visualization system for Octave

[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: octaviz - 3D visualization system for Octave


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439100





------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com  2008-04-13 09:22 EST -------
Hi Claudio, here's a more thorough review:

good:
 + rpmlint is silent
 + license is correctly included
 + specfile is legible and macros appear to be sane
 + source matches upstream sha1sum:
     b9bd87453b30696cbc175158c4a74b5db42ae126  octaviz-0.4.7.tar.gz
     b9bd87453b30696cbc175158c4a74b5db42ae126  octaviz-0.4.7.tar.gz.orig
 + builds in mock for F8 x86_64
 + works (with some demo path issues below) when installed on F8 x86_64
 + proper use of ldconfig
 + no duplicates in %files listing
 + no need for -devel
 + file permissions appear to be correct
 + spec has %clean and does "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' before install
 + no *.la
 + no need for %{name}.desktop since its an octave add-on

needswork / suggestions:
 - According to the guidelines
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
   octaviz is an addon package and should be named "octave-octaviz".
   I think this is a good idea but I don't consider it a "blocker"
   (that is, if you have good reasons to keep the name as-is then
   we can discuss/consider it).

 - license is GPLv2+ (please note the "+") per the COPYING and README
   files

 - VTK_DATA_ROOT should be set to %{_datadir}/vtkdata-5.0.4 not
   %{_datadir}/vtkdata-5.0.3 on F8 -- and perhaps this can be fixed
   more automatically within the spec-file using
     BuildRequires: vtkdata
   and then adding a macro such as $(find %{_datadir} -name vtkdata*)
   or similar logic

 - Should octaviz require vtkdata?  I think it should since many
   of the octaviz demo scripts depend upon data (images) provided by
   vtkdata.  The only downside to requiring it the ~20MB vtkdata
   download which is big-ish.  So please don't consider this a 
   blocker, its more of a judgment call.


I think the package is in good shape and the remaining changes are pretty 
minor.  Can you please comment on the above?

Also, I'm willing to sponsor you if you'll demonstrate an ability to review 
packages by doing at least one "pre-review" as described above.

-- 
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.