Bug 225981 - Merge Review: lcms
Merge Review: lcms
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Alexander Larsson
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:17 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-08-10 16:44:34 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
dan: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
patch to fix the discussed issues (1.15 KB, patch)
2007-02-04 08:23 EST, Dan Horák
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:17:52 EST
Fedora Merge Review: lcms

Initial Owner: alexl@redhat.com
Comment 1 Dan Horák 2007-02-04 07:27:27 EST
should be quick as it is coming from Extras originally :-)
Comment 2 Dan Horák 2007-02-04 08:19:08 EST
OK	source files match upstream:
OK	package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK	specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK	dist tag is present.
OK	build root is correct.
OK	license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK	latest version is being packaged.
OK	BuildRequires are proper.
OK	compiler flags are appropriate.
OK	%clean is present.
OK	package builds in mock (i386).
OK	package installs properly
OK	debuginfo package looks complete.
OK	final provides and requires are sane:
OK	shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig is run.
OK	owns the directories it creates.
OK	doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK	no duplicates in %files.
OK	file permissions are appropriate.
OK	scriptlets are present and they are sane.
OK	code, not content.
OK	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK	headers in devel subpackage.
OK	pkgconfig filesin devel subpackage.
OK	no libtool .la are packaged.
OK	not a GUI app.


BAD	license field does NOT match the actual license.

	The License tag contains LGPL, but the license in the COPYING file and in the
source files headers is different. The Web say it is MIT license.


BAD	 rpmlint is NOT silent.

I: lcms checking
E: lcms zero-length /usr/share/doc/lcms-1.15/ChangeLog
	the ChangeLog could be omited

I: python-lcms checking
W: python-lcms summary-ended-with-dot Python interface to LittleCMS.

Also a newer version 1.16 was already released.
Comment 3 Dan Horák 2007-02-04 08:23:25 EST
Created attachment 147300 [details]
patch to fix the discussed issues
Comment 4 Michael Schwendt 2007-02-04 10:34:04 EST
> Requires:       python, %{python_sitearch}

The automatic "python(abi) = ..." dep should suffice. Path deps make
Yum download the extra filelists, which is unnecessary in this case.

> touch ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{python_sitearch}/lcms.py{c,o}

> %ghost %{python_sitearch}/lcms.py?

We no longer %ghost compiled Python files.

> %{_libdir}/*.a

Static libs can go, right?
Comment 5 Alexander Larsson 2007-02-05 08:06:41 EST
All comments fixed in 1.16-1.

Also, this was once an extras package that moved to core due to f-spot requiring
it. I'll gladly give it back to whoever else wants to maintain it. Michael,
you're latest in the changelog. Are you interested?
Comment 6 Michael Schwendt 2007-02-05 09:16:47 EST
No particular interest. I've never been a maintainer of lcms, just
a bug-fix grunt.
Comment 7 Dan Horák 2007-02-07 04:24:33 EST
Did not you forget to fix the Requires in the python subpackage from comment #4?
I agree with Michael on this.

It looks like the new sources have a new feature - almost all files have the
exec bit set. Please, unset it at least from *.c and *.h files that are packaged
into the -debug subpackage.

find . -name \*.[ch] | xargs chmod -x
Comment 8 Alexander Larsson 2007-02-08 06:17:47 EST
Fixed in 1.16-3.
Comment 9 Dan Horák 2007-02-09 03:28:36 EST
I don't see any other problems, so this package is APPROVED.
Comment 10 Alexander Larsson 2007-05-15 03:47:50 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: lcms
Updated Fedora Owners: andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de, kwizart@gmail.com

Handing over lcms maintainership.
Comment 11 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2007-05-15 12:51:27 EDT
Thx for doing this!

For now i haven't seen a FC-6 branch when doing cvs co lcms
I would like to update FC-6 from current devel (with no changes since this will
lead to broken upgrade path...)

Do adread agree with this ? 
(I explain that it is safe here : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/236067 )
lcsm 0.16 is also marked stable on their website...

Should we ask for package maintainers to confirm and/or test a 0.16 package for
lcms ? I don't think that is necessary...

1.17 is unstable for now and i will work on it after F7 is out... (for F8 rawhide)

Comment 12 Matthias Clasen 2007-08-10 16:44:34 EDT
This review is done.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.