Bug 693677

Build in koji as http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2974546

- rpmlint OK
rpmlint avl-*
avl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
avl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
avl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
- license field must match actual license ?
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK
- sources must match the upstream source OK
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK

License: you are providing license files with LGPLv3, but it's licensed as LGPLv2.

Defining buildroot, rm -rf and clean section are not necessary for Fedora.

(In reply to comment #2)
> - rpmlint OK
> rpmlint avl-*
> avl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
> avl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL

No, it isn't ... “AVL tree manipulation library”, AVL here describes the type of trees managed, not the name of the package.

> avl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

Well, there just isn't any documentation available for -devel. The only non-code files are README, and COPYING, which are included in the main package.

> - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
> - license field must match actual license ?
>
> License: you are providing license files with LGPLv3, but it's licensed as
> LGPLv2.

Looks like LGPLv2 to me.
 
> Defining buildroot, rm -rf and clean section are not necessary for Fedora.

Yes, but this is supposed to be build on RHEL as well (eventually for forked-daapd server). I am lazy, I would love to have one spec for both.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > - rpmlint OK
> > rpmlint avl-*
> > avl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
> > avl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AVL
>
Ok.
 
> No, it isn't ... “AVL tree manipulation library”, AVL here describes the type
> of trees managed, not the name of the package.
> 
> > avl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 
> Well, there just isn't any documentation available for -devel. The only
> non-code files are README, and COPYING, which are included in the main package.
> 
> > - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license ?
> > - license field must match actual license ?
> >
> > License: you are providing license files with LGPLv3, but it's licensed as
> > LGPLv2.
> 
> Looks like LGPLv2 to me.
In updated version are not sources with definition of LGPLv3, so it's okay now.

> 
> > Defining buildroot, rm -rf and clean section are not necessary for Fedora.
> 
> Yes, but this is supposed to be build on RHEL as well (eventually for
> forked-daapd server). I am lazy, I would love to have one spec for both.
Ok.

APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: avl
Short Description: AVL tree manipulation library
Owners: mcepl
Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).