Bug 655866
| Summary: | Review Request: xqc - C/C++ API for interfacing with XQuery processors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, jonathan.robie, lemenkov, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lemenkov:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-01-12 08:03:45 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 658420 | ||
|
Description
Martin Gieseking
2010-11-22 15:09:06 UTC
I support this change. I'll review it Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2714364 REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+/- rpmlint is almost silent
work ~: rpmlint Desktop/xqc-1.0-0.1.20101120svn.fc15.*
xqc.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/xqc.h
^^^ this seems to be ok. This package contains only this file. Although I prefer that such packages should be named ad *-devel I have no strong opinion here.
xqc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: xqc.tar.gz
^^^ that's ok for development snapshots.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I have only two cosmetic suggestions:
* You may use svn export instead of svn co (you don't need to explicitly remove .svn case of using export)
* Explicitly mentioning svn version in %version field sounds like a good idea.
These notes won't block the approval - feel free to ignore them.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
+/- The package contains only one header file. Generally, we're placing such files into *-devel packages but IMO this is not the same case - *-devel packages are supplementary ones to the other rpms, which could be used standalone. So I don't think we need to create virtual provides or rename package here - this package is specifically designed to contain only header files.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Ok, here is a summary:
* Please, consider my cosmetic notes above.
* Regardless of the result of your consideration (these notes are just cosmetic ones), this package is
APPROVED.
Thank you for the review and your notes, Peter. Much appreciated. I prefer to keep the package name "xqc" because this is the name of the upstream project, and "xqc-devel" might indicate that there must be a corresponding non-devel "xqc" package (just my impression). I'll think about your other suggestions. Thanks again. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xqc Short Description: C/C++ API for interfacing with XQuery processors Owners: mgieseki Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13 xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc14 xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |