Bug 624020

Uhm, %doc HACKING, really? Usually, HACKING is a document on how to develop the package itself, not useful for users of the package. Or is this one a (badly-named) document on how to develop WITH the library?

I wonder why it's included - one task on my big TODO list to be reported upstream.

[thomas@tusdell ~]$ rpmlint libbluedevil
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libbluedevil.so.1.5 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libbluedevil.so.1.5 /lib64/libm.so.6
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

^^^^ installed libbluedevil

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
LGPLv2+
XX - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
md5sum 038bdc46b5b74e96fb178ec6ae9ed2d2
NN - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
NN - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
NN - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NN - .la files are removed.

NN - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
XX - No rpmlint output.
See above
and:
libbluedevil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluez -> blue, blues, bluer
libbluedevil.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
Still under heavy development, patches flying around, upstream is very responsive and fast.

Issues:
The two warnings about spelling error and no documentation can be ignored.

The above rpmlint output about unused-direct-shlib-dependency should be reported/asked upstream. None are blockers.

APPROVED

Thanks Thomas!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libbluedevil
Short Description: A Qt wrapper for bluez
Owners: jreznik than rdieter kkofler rnovacek thomasj
Branches: f13, f14
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

libbluedevil-1.8-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libbluedevil-1.8-3.fc14

libbluedevil-1.8-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.