[Bug 450527] Review Request: libkni - C++ library for the Katana robot arm

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450527


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-11-07 15:33:37 EDT ---
I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, but I have some time now.

Too bad the so-called "review-o-matic" can't actually interpret that rpmlint
output.  The no-documentation complaints are OK, the zero-length files in the
-docs package are all due to the usual suck that comes with doxygen.

The upstream URL doesn't seem to take me to anywhere useful.  The page isn't
exactly blank, but it doesn't seem to actually refer to the software.   I went
to the download page and there seems to be a 4.0.0 version out there; I'll look
at it if you would like to do an update.

The source files indicate GPLv2+ (they have the "any later version" clause), so
the license tag seems off.

There's some mixed macro use in the spec; if you're not going to use
%{__mkdir_p} and %{__rm}, then don't use %{__install} either.

I can't tell if all of the source gets into the debuginfo package.  Its
compiled, but I guess its possible that some of it may only go into the static
libraries from which debuginfo can't be generated.  Certainly some of the
source is in there.

* source files match upstream:
   85b28a100feb0dd77a94e4d77922fa7849078eef3438d969c0c01cfb6a01d296  
   KNI_3.9.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
X specfile does not use macros consistently
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate (as far as I can tell; build output is
hidden).
* %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:
  libkni-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   config(libkni) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit)
   libkni = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libkni(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   config(libkni) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)

  libkni-devel-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   pkgconfig(libkni) = 3.9.2
   libkni-devel = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libkni-devel(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
  =
   libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit)
   libkni = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   pkgconfig

  libkni-doc-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libkni-doc = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libkni-doc(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
  =

  libkni-examples-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libkni-examples = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libkni-examples(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
  =
   libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libkni = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)

  libkni-static-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libkni-static = 3.9.2-4.fc10
   libkni-static(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10
  =
   libkni-devel = 3.9.2-4.fc10

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I've no idea how to test
this, 
   since I have no robotic arms handy.
* shared libraries present:
   unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.
   ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig file is in the -devel package, with proper dependency.
* static libraries are in a separate -static package.
* 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.