Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 169722

Summary: Review Request: libsexy: Funky fresh graphical widgets for GTK+ 2
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Chris Grau <chris>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-10-15 00:13:59 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-02 03:35:01 UTC
Spec Name or Url:
SRPM Name or Url:
Description: Some graphical widgets for GTK+ 2.

Comment 1 Chris Grau 2005-10-13 02:03:41 UTC
$ rpmlint libsexy-0.1.1-1.i386.rpm
E: libsexy library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/
E: libsexy library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/

Based on the PackageReviewGuidelines, I assume this really is an error. 
However, without any changes to the spec, I was able to build and run a small
demo app using the SexyUrlLabel.  Still, it's a MUST, so I'm pointing it out.


- package name good, spec file name good
- license is LGPL, matches upstream
  - based on the new package guidelines, you can (should?) remove the extra
- spec file is legible, written in am. english
- source matches upstream
- builds cleanly in mock (FC-3 i386)
- built and tested successfully (FC-4 i386)
- files and directories okay
- -devel subpackage good


I think the summary and description are too vague and boring for a package with
the name "libsexy."

Comment 2 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-13 05:59:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Nitpicks:
> I think the summary and description are too vague and boring for a package with
> the name "libsexy."

Yeesh. Everyone's a critic.


Comment 3 Linus Walleij 2005-10-13 06:39:41 UTC
We had this discussion some time ago, regarding .pc files, that if,
as libsexy does:

Cflags: -I${includedir}

This means that if libsexy installs /usr/include/libsexy/foo.h you can
use the pkg-config flags to get

#include <foo.h>

to work, but this is questionable design, because if you're writing a
whole new library, it is better to remove the -I statement and rely on
all code using libsexy to do:

#include <libsexy/foo.h>

instead. If the library is already used in lots of software it is of
course not so good to do this change to upstream, otherwise it is good
to get upstream to remove the -I statement from the .pc file.

Comment 4 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-13 06:49:55 UTC
From libsexy.pc:


And it installs into /usr/include/libsexy, so all your concern is for naught.

Comment 5 Chris Grau 2005-10-13 16:09:33 UTC
Rpmlint is happy.  I'm happy.  Approved.

Comment 6 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-15 00:13:59 UTC
Build on FC4 and devel.