Bug 225981
Summary: | Merge Review: lcms | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Alexander Larsson <alexl> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | alexl, bugs.michael, dan, kwizart | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | dan:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2007-08-10 20:44:34 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 19:17:52 UTC
should be quick as it is coming from Extras originally :-) OK source files match upstream: 930ef7de15eb028c1cdbfe3f1170aaa1d5b0b4d45a8fa496d944216e155122c2 lcms-1.15.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires are sane: OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig is run. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets are present and they are sane. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage. OK pkgconfig filesin devel subpackage. OK no libtool .la are packaged. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD license field does NOT match the actual license. The License tag contains LGPL, but the license in the COPYING file and in the source files headers is different. The Web say it is MIT license. SHOULD FIX: BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. I: lcms checking E: lcms zero-length /usr/share/doc/lcms-1.15/ChangeLog the ChangeLog could be omited I: python-lcms checking W: python-lcms summary-ended-with-dot Python interface to LittleCMS. Also a newer version 1.16 was already released. Created attachment 147300 [details]
patch to fix the discussed issues
> Requires: python, %{python_sitearch} The automatic "python(abi) = ..." dep should suffice. Path deps make Yum download the extra filelists, which is unnecessary in this case. > touch ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{python_sitearch}/lcms.py{c,o} > %ghost %{python_sitearch}/lcms.py? We no longer %ghost compiled Python files. > %{_libdir}/*.a Static libs can go, right? All comments fixed in 1.16-1. Also, this was once an extras package that moved to core due to f-spot requiring it. I'll gladly give it back to whoever else wants to maintain it. Michael, you're latest in the changelog. Are you interested? No particular interest. I've never been a maintainer of lcms, just a bug-fix grunt. Did not you forget to fix the Requires in the python subpackage from comment #4? I agree with Michael on this. It looks like the new sources have a new feature - almost all files have the exec bit set. Please, unset it at least from *.c and *.h files that are packaged into the -debug subpackage. find . -name \*.[ch] | xargs chmod -x Fixed in 1.16-3. I don't see any other problems, so this package is APPROVED. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lcms Updated Fedora Owners: andreas.bierfert, kwizart Handing over lcms maintainership. Thx for doing this! For now i haven't seen a FC-6 branch when doing cvs co lcms I would like to update FC-6 from current devel (with no changes since this will lead to broken upgrade path...) Do adread agree with this ? (I explain that it is safe here : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/236067 ) lcsm 0.16 is also marked stable on their website... Should we ask for package maintainers to confirm and/or test a 0.16 package for lcms ? I don't think that is necessary... 1.17 is unstable for now and i will work on it after F7 is out... (for F8 rawhide) This review is done. |