Spec URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/libsexy.spec SRPM URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/libsexymm-0.1.7-1.src.rpm Description: C++ bindings to libsexy
wrong spec file URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/libsexymm.spec
Greetings. Here's a review: OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: cb01af4595000d9e192f5d9fcff5b742 libsexymm-0.1.7.tar.gz cb01af4595000d9e192f5d9fcff5b742 libsexymm-0.1.7.tar.gz.1 See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch See below - BuildRequires correct n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: See Below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. See Below - Should build in mock. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. Issues: 1. The COPYING file included is the GPL, not the LGPL that this package is distributed under. Perhaps ping upstream to include the correct license file? 2. Doesn't build under mock for me, I get: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lxml2 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[5]: *** [libsexymm.la] Error 1 Possibly missing BuildRequires: libxml2-devel? With that added it builds. 3. Are these Requires in the main package needed: Requires: gtkmm24 Requires: libsexy >= 0.1.7 and in the devel package: Requires: gtkmm24-devel 4. rpmlint says: W: libsexymm one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig W: libsexymm one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig Suggest: Might change your post and postun to just do -p /sbin/ldconfig E: libsexymm-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These should be under /usr/include and /usr/share? /usr/lib/libsexymm/include /usr/lib/libsexymm/include/libsexymmconfig.h /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4 /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4/convert.m4 /usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4/convert_libsexymm.m4 W: libsexymm-devel no-documentation This one can be ignored.
Hello, thanks for reviewing my package. * Here's the updated spec : http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/libsexymm.spec * The srpm : http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/libsexymm-0.1.7-3.src.rpm * rpmlint output: [kurosaki@localhost i386]$ rpmlint -i libsexymm-0.1.7-3.i386.rpm [kurosaki@localhost i386]$ rpmlint -i libsexymm-devel-0.1.7-3.i386.rpm W: libsexymm-devel no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. * Issues: 1) About the license, I added a patch to correct the license file. Debian developers were told by libsexymm maintainers (David Trowbridge & Christian Hammond) that the license of the bindings is LGPL. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libs/libsexymm/libsexymm_0.1.7-3/libsexymm-dev.copyright It has been fixed 2 weeks ago in libsexymm's svn but no release has been made since, if needed, I'll mail libsexymm maintainers. http://osiris.chipx86.com/svn/osiris-misc/trunk/libsexymm/ChangeLog 2) Right, it needs libxml2 to build. 3) Removed. 4) Corrected
The rpmlint warning on no docs in the devel subpackage can be ignored in this case I think. Including a copy of the license is a SHOULD item in the review guidelines, not a MUST, so it's not a blocker either way. Your patch should be fine for now, glad they fixed it upstream. Everything else looks good to me, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built for devel.
The package has been imported into cvs. The builds succeeded.