Bug 494862

Summary:	Review Request: podofo - Tools and libraries to work with the PDF file format
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Dan Horák <dan>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, notting, susi.lehtola
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	susi.lehtola: fedora-review+ dennis: 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:	2009-05-02 06:58:11 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:

Description Dan Horák 2009-04-08 12:45:19 UTC

Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo-0.7.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

Description:
oDoFo is a library to work with the PDF file format. The name comes from
the first letter of PDF (Portable Document Format). A few tools to work
with PDF files are already included in the PoDoFo package.

The PoDoFo library is a free, portable C++ library which includes classes
to parse PDF files and modify their contents into memory. The changes can be
written back to disk easily. The parser can also be used to extract
information from a PDF file (for example the parser could be used in a PDF
viewer). Besides parsing PoDoFo includes also very simple classes to create
your own PDF files. All classes are documented so it is easy to start writing
your own application using PoDoFo.

Comment 1 Dan Horák 2009-04-08 13:13:23 UTC

koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1285199

Comment 2 Susi Lehtola 2009-04-18 10:26:35 UTC

rpmlint output is clean.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX
- I don't think linking GPL/LGPL without exceptions to OpenSSL is okay due to OpenSSL's advertisement clauses.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
- LaTeX documentation exists, but I wasn't able to build it. HTML documentation is probably enough.
- You need to add AUTHORS and TODO to %doc of all packages.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

Comment 3 Dan Horák 2009-04-29 17:02:18 UTC

The licensing issue was taken upstream, I am waiting for response.

Comment 4 Dan Horák 2009-04-30 09:10:50 UTC

Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo.spec
Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/podofo-0.7.0-2.fc11.src.rpm

ChangeLog:
- removed dependency on openssl, upstream told me, that it is actually not required and when it will become required, they will add the exception clause to the license
- added AUTHORS and TODO to the libs subpackage only, because it is always installed

Comment 5 Susi Lehtola 2009-04-30 17:02:46 UTC

Okay. The package has been

APPROVED.


PS. Your last changelog entry seems rather longish; maybe you should break it down to match the 80 character width limit?

Comment 6 Dan Horák 2009-04-30 17:30:32 UTC

(In reply to comment #5)
> Okay. The package has been
> 
> APPROVED.

Thanks for the review.
 
> 
> PS. Your last changelog entry seems rather longish; maybe you should break it
> down to match the 80 character width limit?  

Sure, will do it.

Comment 7 Dan Horák 2009-04-30 17:31:51 UTC

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: podofo
Short Description: Tools and libraries to work with the PDF file format
Owners: sharkcz
Branches: EL-5 F-10 F-11

Comment 8 Dennis Gilmore 2009-05-01 20:52:05 UTC

CVS Done

Comment 9 Dan Horák 2009-05-02 06:58:11 UTC

imported and built