Bug 427514

Sorry about the wrong links:
Spec URL: http://www.geocities.com/fatema_mhs/libnova.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.geocities.com/fatema_mhs/libnova-0.12.1-0.fc8.src.rpm

1) Review guidelines suggests that 
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
   and as -devel package does not provide any .pc you should drop that.
2) Under %files section of -devel change following line 
 %{_includedir}/libnova/*.h
 to
 %{_includedir}/libnova
  this will ensure that packages owns this directory also. Otherwise it will be
owning only %{_includedir}/libnova/*.h files

3)This package contains COPYING which is main file for any package so add it to
%doc for libnova and libnova-devel 
License tag should be here LGPLv2+

4) good to add examples/*.c to %doc of %files section of -devel 



  

Thanks a lot for reviewing, Changes made:
Spec File: http://www.geocities.com/fatema_mhs/libnova.spec.txt
SRPM:      http://www.geocities.com/fatema_mhs/libnova-0.12.1-1.fc8.src.rpm

This package does not follow compiler flags as per 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8b14098227aebff1cf6188939e9d0877295ac448
==> use make command in spec as
make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"  %{?_smp_mflags}

Changes made, same place for the spec and SRPM

Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url
8f4c6860aa627c5d0694b8bb5699fe7f  libnova-0.12.1.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ Compiler flags used correctly.
+ defattr usage is correct.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ ldconfig scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Package libnova-0.12.1-1.fc9 ->
  Provides: libnova-0.12.so.1
  Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libm.so.6
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libnova-0.12.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Package libnova-devel-0.12.1-1.fc9 ->
  Requires: libnova = 0.12.1-1.fc9 libnova-0.12.so.1
+ Not a GUI App.
APPROVED.


I have sponsored you. Follow CVSAdminProcedure.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libnova
Short Description: Libnova is a general purpose astronomy & astrodynamics library
Owners: huzaifas
Branches: F-8
InitialCC: huzaifas
Cvsextras Commits: no
    

cvs done.

Any particular reason to not allow cvsextras commits? 

No,
Sorry i copy pasted this from somewhere else and this is an oversight
Can you do this please.

cvsextras added. Thanks. 

Closing this Review ticket as this package is successfully built on koji for
requested branches.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libnova
New Branches: epel7
Owners: lupinix
InitialCC: lupinix

We need this package for libindi in EPEL7.

Comments from the primary maintainers?

Sent an email about two months ago to the maintainer without any reaction :(

(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #14)
> Sent an email about two months ago to the maintainer without any reaction :(

I am here, sorry was pretty busy with stuff. I dont mind you maintaining EPEL.
In future NEEDINFO on a bug is the best way to get my attention :)

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libnova
New Branches: epel7
Owners: lupinix
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).