Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gauche-gl - OpenGL binding for Gauche


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188178





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-06 20:05 EST -------
On Brian's remarks:

1) I don't see problems with ownership of %{_infodir}; the package will own
/usr/share/info/gauche-gl-refe.info.gz but doesn't own the directory.

2) Yep, those could be trimmed although this isn't a blocker.

3) I think it's important that Requires(post): and Requires(postun): for
install-info be listed separately.

4) RPM won't pick up the versioned dependency.  I don't know about Gauche
internals but it's possible that the soname alone is not sufficient; there may
be scheme code dependencies as well.  GĂ©rard would be the best one to decide on
that.

5) I can't argue about VERSION; I looked for other rather content-free README
files and found a couple quickly (axis and bug-buddy) so there seems to be some
precedent for including that kind of thing even when it doesn't say much.  It's
a coin toss.

My own issues:
You're missing BR: texinfo; without it, no info files are generated and the
build fails in %files.

rpmlint complains:
W: gauche-gl incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1-1 0.4.1-3

Please add a changelog entry when you bump the revision.

W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/particle.vert
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/particle.frag
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/3Dlabs-License.txt
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/README.txt
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/brick.frag
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/3Dlabs-License.txt
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/ogl2particle.scm
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2particle/README.txt
W: gauche-gl wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/slbook/ogl2brick/brick.vert

I suggest you run these through sed to strip the carriage returns.

W: gauche-gl hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gauche/0.8.7/lib/.packages
W: gauche-gl hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gauche/0.8.7/lib/.packages

Same issue as with gauche-gtk; it's your decision on handling this.

W: gauche-gl devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/gauche/0.8.7/include/gauche/math3d.h

Is this needed at runtime?  The guidelines indicate that this should be in a
-devel package, but it seems a waste for just one file.

W: gauche-gl doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/gauche-gl-0.4.1/examples/glbook/run /usr/bin/env

Probably the same issue as with gauche-gtk.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible; text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   a51b19a0f16f88ed6cd85c6e49cc6e75  Gauche-gl-0.4.1.tgz
   a51b19a0f16f88ed6cd85c6e49cc6e75  Gauche-gl-0.4.1.tgz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are more than necessary (which is not a blocker) and missing
texinfo (which is a blocker)
* package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64) (after fixing RB: texinfo)
X rpmlint complains; see above.
X final provides are sane; final requires include extra /usr/bin/env and
install-info should be in Requires(post) and Requires(postun).
O shared libraries are present, but are internal to gauche.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X file permissions: executable file in %doc.
* %clean is present.
O %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* scriptlets are sane.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
X no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to