[Bug 459088] Review Request: protobuf - Protocol Buffers - Google's data interchange format

[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=459088





--- Comment #9 from Rick L Vinyard Jr <rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu>  2008-09-05 13:15:19 EDT ---
I'm not a sponsor, but perhaps this review will help speed things up:

===== MUST Items =====
  UNKNOWN - rpmlint results
    protobuf-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-
        packages/google/protobuf/descriptor_pb2.py 0644
    protobuf-static.i386: W: no-documentation
    protobuf-vim.i386: W: no-documentation
    8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

    rpmlint gives an error for 0644 permissions, but other python packages use
    the same permissions. False positive in rpmlint?
  PASSED - package is named according to package guidelines
  PASSED - spec file name matches the base package
  PASSED - package meets guidelines
  PASSED - ASL 2.0 license is acceptable
  PASSED - spec license field matches actual license
  PASSED - license in package included in %doc
  PASSED - spec is written in American English
  PASSED - spec file is legible
  PASSED - sources match upstream sources
           Upstream md5sum: add533032c5abffa378306fb580a18a4 
protobuf-2.0.1.tar.bz2
           srpm md5sum:     add533032c5abffa378306fb580a18a4 
protobuf-2.0.1.tar.bz2
  PASSED - package successfully builds on i386 and x86_64
  PASSED - all dependencies listed in BuildRequires
  PASSED - no BuildRequires duplicates
  PASSED - no BuildRequires listed exceptions
  PASSED - specfile does not have locales
  PASSED - ldconfig correctly called for all shared lib packages
  PASSED - relocatable
  PASSED - owns all directories it creates
  PASSED - doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
  PASSED - no duplicate files
  PASSED - permissions set properly
  PASSED - each %files section has a proper %defattr
  PASSED - %clean present and proper
  PASSED - macro usage consistent
  PASSED - package contains code, not content
  PASSED - Documentation not large... no need for separate %doc
  PASSED - %doc section does not effect runtime
  PASSED - devel files are in a separate -devel subpackage
  PASSED - static libraries present, but in separate -static subpackage
           given the nature of this library, presence of statics are beneficial
  FAILED - The -devel also needs a Requires: pkgconfig
  PASSED - -devel requires the base using a fully versioned dependency
  FAILED - libtool archives are included in -devel
           Add this line after make in %install to fix and remove .la from
-devel
             find %{buildroot} -type f -name "*.la" -exec rm -f {} ';'
  PASSED - no GUI applications, no need for desktop files
  PASSED - package doesn't own directories owned by other packages
  PASSED - all filenames are UTF-8

===== SHOULD Items =====
  GOOD    - Package builds in mock; Fedora 9 i386 and x86_64
  GOOD    - Package functionality tested:
           main library functions properly with app built against libprotobuf
           -compiler functions properly
           -devel functions properly including pkgconfig
           -vim functions properly
  UNKNOWN - shouldn't -python depend on the base package for libprotobuf? 
  GOOD    - package uses disttag


===== OTHER Items =====
I'd prefer to see the make line look like this to preserve permissions:
  %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
STRIPBINARIES=no

-- 
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.