Spec URL: http://www.skytale.net/files/libmowgli/libmowgli.spec SRPM URL: http://www.skytale.net/files/libmowgli/libmowgli-0.5.0-0.1.sky.src.rpm Description: mowgli is a development framework for C (like GLib), which provides high performance and highly flexible algorithms. It can be used as a suppliment to GLib (to add additional functions (dictionaries, hashes), or replace some of the slow GLib list manipulation functions), or stand alone. It also provides a powerful hook system and convenient logging for your code, as well as a high performance block allocator. Note to the reviewer: The release number in the package does not match the release number in the changelog entry. rpmlint will complain about this. This is intentional, and will be synchronized once the package is approved. The rationale behind this is that "pre-release" release numbers (0.1, 0.2...) can be used during the review, so that the final package can be released with a release number of 1.
source url is not working. I found its http://distfiles.atheme.org/libmowgli-0.5.0.tgz rpmlint complained on SRPM libmowgli.src: W: strange-permission libmowgli-0.5.0.tgz 0600 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. libmowgli.src: W: strange-permission libmowgli.spec 0600 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
good to add examples to %doc build.log showed many escape sequences printed but not evaluated. I think its because of Makefile written in that way. Dunno if its really needed to avoid this but it looks very complex output from build.log
Will add the examples to %doc in devel. The escape sequences come from the build system used in libmowgli, because I disabled SILENT in the .spec. The alternative would be an output without any compiler/linker calls, which makes build failures hard to debug. I agree that it looks ugly, but I see no easy way around that. URL and file permissions will be fixed, too.
New SRPM/spec available at http://www.skytale.net/files/libmowgli/
license looks to me as MIT not BSD.
Upstream says it's ISC, will fix.
Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. with assuming you will import with correct changelog version. + source files match upstream url b8ba57aa4c674765b0852b44798227cb libmowgli-0.5.0.tgz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + libmowgli.pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package libmowgli-0.5.0-0.3.fc9 -> Provides: libmowgli.so.1 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) libmowgli.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package libmowgli-devel-0.5.0-0.3.fc9 -> Requires: libmowgli = 0.5.0-0.3.fc9 libmowgli.so.1 pkgconfig + Not a GUI App. APPROVED.
Thank you for taking the time to review this. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libmowgli Short Description: An algorithm framework Owners: ertzing Branches: F-7 F-8 Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
As, I can see package is now in rawhide so I guess there will be no issues in closing this review now.
Any reason there are still no F-7 and F-8 builds?
(In reply to comment #12) > Any reason there are still no F-7 and F-8 builds? What? How comes that today's FC8 audacious update already depends on them? # yum update ... Setting up Update Process Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package audacious-libs.i386 0:1.4.5-1.fc8 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: libmowgli.so.1 for package: audacious-libs --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libmowgli.so.1 is needed by package audacious-libs
libmowgli has not been pushed to stable for F-8 as it should have been. My mistake, the push has been requested.
(In reply to comment #14) > libmowgli has not been pushed to stable for F-8 as it should > have been. My mistake, the push has been requested. This only partially answers my question. A bit stronger: How comes that a package with apparently broken deps could have made it into the official updates?
That I do not know, I requested the push for audacious/audacious-plugins into stable. mcs (another dependency) was moved into updates-candidate along with it, but libmowgli was not.