Bug 226026
Summary: | Merge Review: libgtop2 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mclasen, mszpak, panemade, sandmann | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
|
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2010-10-05 04:52:08 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 19:24:52 UTC
That's my first review of someone's else package so please be understanding and make your suggestions to my review. REVIEW: - rpmlint reports warning (see below) + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license GPL, inlcuded in %doc + md5sum matches upstream - BuildRequires - suggestions below + locales OK + ldconfig in %post and %postun + no problems with directories + no duplicates in %files + %defattr is set + %clean section looks good + macros are used + headres in -devel + .la files removed + pkgconfig in Requires (due to .pc files) - not clear build options (see below) THINGS: rpmlint warings: W: libgtop2 summary-not-capitalized libgtop library (version 2) W: libgtop2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 7) Summary sections SHOULD be extended. "libgtop library (version 2)" doesn't say too much for most people. BuildRequires: texinfo doesn't seem to be required (in my opinion) and SHOULD be removed. info file is created without it (and is deleted anyway by a command in spec file). texinfo depends on several other packages. gtk-doc package won't be needed in gtk-doc files are not intended (see below) building: gtk-doc files are created despite of the option --disable-gtk-doc in configure. It could be problem with upstream. I'm not sure if gtk-doc are intended or not because in %files section there is "%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/libgtop". In libgtop2-devel for FC5 there are not that files. In FC7 they are. When gtk-doc is not available in a system libgtop is built without them, so if those files are not needed gtk-doc (depends on several other packages) could be removed from BuildRequires list (if the next point was changed). In SRPMS there is a patch (libgtop-2.0.2-prog_as.patch) which adds "AM_PROG_AS" to configure.in. I'm not an expert of automake, but I'm not sure if it's required, because without it libgtop2 builds just fine. Maybe it was required only in libgtop-2.0.x series? This patch has also one side effect. Because it changes configure.in configure script has to be rebuilt and to do that gtk-doc is required (which wouldn't be omited if gtk-doc's files are not intended to be in a package). Btw, I changed status to NEEDINFO from Assignee (should be the owner of a package), but I'm not sure about that status. No response for 4 weeks. Needinfo targed changed to (probable) maintainer (who should get last notification anyway). Created attachment 449376 [details]
spec cleanup
mclasen,
I have removed libs.patch as I don't see any effect of it in existing spec written. Please approve attached patch.
Removed libs patch. Applied cleanup patch in build libgtop2-2.28.2-2.fc15 APPROVED. I've already lost all hope to see anything in that issue (3,5+ years :) ). Thanks for interest. |