[Bug 474992] Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware

[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=474992


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 #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-13 16:04:25 EDT ---
Well, it's been a few weeks and nobody else has stepped in, so I'll review this
even though I don't have the hardware.

For a multiple license scenario like this, you need to indicate (usually by a
comment in the spec) which parts of the package are under which license.  I'm
not sure which part of the main package might fall under the LGPL.

I don't see anywhere in the code that a version of the GPL or LGPL is
specified, 
which makes the situation complex.  The LGPL parts end up as LGPLv2+ while GPL
parts end up as GPL+, which when compiled together make the result GPLv2+. 
Ugh.

I'm not sure why you call ldconfig; no dynamic libraries are installed by this
package.  Actually, you get a static lib even though you pass --disable-static.
 Any idea what's going on?

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   b29d0858450c56fca97c03cb1032e3b469166d431bfa7327fa3183d31a9f64b2  
   libirman-0.4.4.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.
? unsure whether the license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libirman-0.4.4-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   config(libirman) = 0.4.4-3.fc11
   libirman = 0.4.4-3.fc11
   libirman(x86-64) = 0.4.4-3.fc11
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   config(libirman) = 0.4.4-3.fc11

  libirman-devel-0.4.4-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   libirman-static = 0.4.4-3.fc11
   libirman-devel = 0.4.4-3.fc11
   libirman-devel(x86-64) = 0.4.4-3.fc11
  =
   libirman = 0.4.4-3.fc11

* 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
X ldconfig scriptlets present, but I'm not sure why.
* 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.
* no pkgconfig files.
* static libraries are present:
  No dynamic libs, so they can be in the -devel package.
  -static provide is there.
* 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.