Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 188458
Review Request: libassetml - xml resource database library
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:30 EST
Spec Name or Url:
Sorry no URL I'm currently behind a PC which doesn't have upload access to my homepage :| I'll attach the specfile instead.
SRPM Name or Url:
Same here, just download the tar bal from the sf.net homepage, thats all you need besides the spec.
AssetML defines an xml file that can be used by application developers as a
resource database. The idea is to have a way to search content on your hard
drive with metadata (like name, category, file type, description) instead of
just a file name. This way, users can browse content more easily and developers
can share content more easily.
This is one of the dependencies of gcompris (http://gcompris.net/), which in turn is a big collection of educational games I would really like to package.
Created attachment 127540 [details]
It looks like there's an extra 'f' in the Source0: url: 'offset' -> 'ofset'.
Also, the following line generates an error during the build. It seems that the
info 'dir' file is not created during 'make install':
Thanks for catching the double ff. The other one is strange I added the rm
because on my system the build did create a dir file, anyways I've changed the
rm to an "rm -f" so it will work in either case.
New version, SRPM this time at:
Thanks for the SRPM. It builds fine now, but with a few 'differ in signedness'
warnings on FC-4. I'll post a full review later tonight.
I notice there is some inconsistency in the version numbers for this package.
The package itself is version 1.2.1; The .so is named libassetml.so.0.0.0; The
-devel include directory is libassetml-1.0. This may prove problematic when
future versions of libassetml are released with incompatible APIs.
E: libassetml-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
* Package and spec named appropriately
* GPL license ok. License file included in base package
* Spec file legible and in Am. English
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on FC-4 i386, FC-4 x86_64
* No excessive or disallowed BR:
* Locales handled correctly
* ldconfig called in %post/%postun correctly
* Not relocatable
* No duplicate %files
* build root cleaned in %clean and at start of %install
* headers, pkgconfig files, and unsuffixed shlib in -devel
* -devel requires base
* No .la archives
* No .desktop file necessary
* Contains code, not content
* This isn't a blocker, but you can get rid of the rpmlint warning by
removing the execute permission bit on the offending source file in %prep.
* -devel owns %datadir/gnome. However, it seems that almost 20 other packages
also claim to own this directory, so this isn't a blocker. Perhaps you
can restrict the ownership to %datadir/gnome/help/%name?
Since there are no blockers, consider this APPROVED
(In reply to comment #5)
> * This isn't a blocker, but you can get rid of the rpmlint warning by
> removing the execute permission bit on the offending source file in %prep.
Thanks for the tip I'll fix that before importing, and thanks for the review!
> * -devel owns %datadir/gnome. However, it seems that almost 20 other packages
> also claim to own this directory, so this isn't a blocker. Perhaps you
> can restrict the ownership to %datadir/gnome/help/%name?
Erm, since there is no logical package to depend on for this dir your suggestion
could lead to unowned dirs which is worse then having dirs owned by many.
Imported and build.