[Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol

Wed Apr 1 21:21:01 UTC 2009

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=493432

--- Comment #4 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com>  2009-04-01 17:21:00 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Is there really no upstream URL?  You probably want to remove the commented URL
> tag as it seems unrelated.    Unfortunately without an upstream site I don't
> have a clue as to how you find new version of the source.

That would be because I asked upstream to make their first release shortly
before posting this bug :)

>  You also get a few
> rpmlint complaints:
> 
>   libgdata.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
>   libgdata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
>   libgdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
> which are OK as long as there really isn't some upstream site to point to.
> 
> Also:
>   libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
>    /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0
>   libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
>    /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
>   libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
>    /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
>   libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
>    /usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
> The library is linked against a few things that are not really necessary.  This
> should cause any real problems as those will always be loaded anyway.
> 
> I don't see where the license is LGPLv2+.  The source looks to me as if it's
> GPLv3+, which might have implications for your planned usage.  Unpack the
> source and grep for 'of the License'.  It's true that for whatever bizarre
> reason, upstream included version 2 of the actual LGPL text, but that has no
> bearing on the actual license that's on the code.  Can you query upstream about
> this?

LGPLv2+ it is, fixed in 0.1.1

> As far as I can tell, there is a test suite but it makes calls out to network
> services which must already be set up, so there's no way it could be run during
> the build process.

It's not run by default.

> So really the only must-fix blocker issue I see is the license tag.
> 
> 
> * source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
>    bb19c90e8bb2f1ead0d7f407ba15e2f6b6d8a2a355b263ca9338bf68846a5b72  
>    libgdata-0.1.0.tar.bz2
> * 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.
> X license field does not match the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
> * license text not included upstream.
> ? latest version is being packaged.
> * BuildRequires are proper.
> * 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:
>   libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
>    libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
>    libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
>    libgdata(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
>   =
>    /sbin/ldconfig
>    libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
>    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>    libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>    libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>    libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
>    libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
> 
>   libgdata-devel-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
>    pkgconfig(libgdata) = 0.1.0
>    libgdata-devel = 0.1.0-1.fc11
>    libgdata-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
>   =
>    /usr/bin/pkg-config
>    gtk-doc
>    libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
>    libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
>    pkgconfig
>    pkgconfig(libsoup-2.4)
>    pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)
> 
> * %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time.
> * shared libraries installed:
>   ldconfig is called properly.
>   unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
> * 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.
> * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
> * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
> * headers are in the -devel package.
> * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency.
> * no static libraries.
> * no libtool .la files.

New version at:
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata.spec
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
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.