Bug 426599

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=307078

I inherited the anjuta-fdl package from Paul F. Johnson, and am going to rename
it as libgdl. See:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-December/msg00830.html

Taking for review.

 - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
 - Spec file matches base package name.
 - Spec has consistant macro usage.
 - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
 - License: (GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+)
 - License field in spec matches
 - License file included in package
Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?
 - Spec in American English
 - Spec is legible.
 - Sources match upstream md5sum: yes
 - Package needs ExcludeArch
 - BuildRequires correct
 - Spec handles locales/find_lang
 - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
 - Package has a correct %clean section.
 - Package has correct buildroot
 - Package is code or permissible content.
 - Doc subpackage not needed
 - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
 - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
 - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
 - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
 - .so files in -devel subpackage.
 - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
 - .la files are removed.
 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
 - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
 - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
 - Package owns all the directories it creates.
 - No rpmlint output.
 - final provides and requires are sane
 - Obsoletes seem sane:

Provides:	anjuta-gdl = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes:	anjuta-gdl < 0.7.7-1
Provides:	anjuta-gdl-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes:	anjuta-gdl-devel < 0.7.7-1

SHOULD Items:

 - Builds in koji using rawhide tag on all supported archs
 - Sane scriptlets.
 - Subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
 - Has dist tag

Issues:

1. Minor:  add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig"
2. Minor:  Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?

Outstanding issues are minor, can be fixed after import:

APPROVED.

It also occurred to me that perhaps gnome-gdl might also work as a name, to make
it clear that it is for GNOME related build tools.  libgdl might be confused as
a library that gdl is dependent on, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

(In reply to comment #4)
> It also occurred to me that perhaps gnome-gdl might also work as a name, to make
> it clear that it is for GNOME related build tools.

I chose libgdl since that is what Debian and Ubuntu calls it, and I thought it
would be a good idea to have consistent naming across distributions.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Issues:
> 
> 1. Minor:  add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig"

The following notation automatically mentions the "Requires(post): ...":
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

> 2. Minor:  Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?

The upstream tarball does not provide the text of the LGPL. According to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-90d644ce2c5db60bad3ba8773fe11653c7629dc3
we should only include a license file as documentation if upstream provided it.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libgdl
Short Description: Components and library for GNOME development tools
Owners: rishi
Branches: F-7 F-8
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

NB: I inherited anjuta-gdl and renaming it to libgdl. So anjuta-gdl should be
deleted from CVS.

(In reply to comment #6)

> > 1. Minor:  add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig"
 
> The following notation automatically mentions the "Requires(post): ...":
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

OK, didn't know that, great.
 
> > 2. Minor:  Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?
> 
> The upstream tarball does not provide the text of the LGPL. According to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-90d644ce2c5db60bad3ba8773fe11653c7629dc3
> we should only include a license file as documentation if upstream provided it.

sure, but we are supposed to pester upstream to ask them to include it.

Anyway, none of these are blockers, so go ahead and import...

cvs done. 

For anjuta-gdl, please follow the package end of life page at: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife

Debarshi: Once you've EOLed anjuta-gdl as per comment #9, can you please close
this bug as NEXTRELEASE?