Bug 640550 - Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
Summary: Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Peter Lemenkov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 641748
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-10-06 10:15 UTC by Kalev Lember
Modified: 2010-10-17 04:52 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-10-07 07:32:37 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
lemenkov: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Kalev Lember 2010-10-06 10:15:30 UTC
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libdigidoc.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description:
libDigiDoc is a library implementing a subset of the XAdES digital
signature standard on top of Estonian specific .ddoc container format.
It allows to create, sign, verify, and modify digidoc XML containers.

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517283

Comment 1 Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-06 16:09:27 UTC
I'll review it

Comment 2 Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-06 18:09:39 UTC
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint almost is silent (the following messages should be safely ignored):

Sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/libdigidoc-*
libdigidoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ddoc -> doc, d doc, Doctor
libdigidoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digidoc -> digitoxin, digital, digitate
libdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdigidoc
libdigidoc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Sulaco ~:

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (LGPLv2 or higher).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2*
0a1ae1f1ef88e4fc26a83529a7d4ea5b9eda5df137fd6ff72e6da63308926aff  libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2
0a1ae1f1ef88e4fc26a83529a7d4ea5b9eda5df137fd6ff72e6da63308926aff  libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package (necessary runtime requirement added automatically - it's ok, but, please, keep in mind that this could be a problem on systems with old rpm).
+ The library file(s) that ends in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, I didn't find any issues so this package is

APPROVED.

Comment 3 Kalev Lember 2010-10-06 18:56:14 UTC
Thanks a lot for the very quick review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libdigidoc
Short Description: Library for handling digitally signed documents
Owners: kalev anttix tuju
Branches: f12 f13 f14
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-06 23:30:34 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Kalev Lember 2010-10-07 07:32:37 UTC
Builds done, closing the ticket. Thanks!

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2010-10-07 07:36:18 UTC
libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc13

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-10-07 07:36:25 UTC
libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2010-10-07 07:36:31 UTC
libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc12

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2010-10-14 06:31:39 UTC
libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2010-10-15 12:37:53 UTC
libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2010-10-17 04:52:09 UTC
libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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