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 bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 173090
Summary: | Review Request: hpic -- Healpix manipulation binaries and library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matthew Truch <matt> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ed Hill <ed> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://cmb.phys.cwru.edu/hpic/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-11-14 18:50:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Matthew Truch
2005-11-14 00:34:24 UTC
Hi Matt, heres a review: nits: - please remode the INSTALL and COPYING files from %doc since the former provides no useful info to an end user and the latter is just another copy of the GPL v2 good: + specfile is easy to read--good! + source matches upstream + license is indeed GPL v2 + builds on FC-4 with the latest cfitsio-devel + no *.la files -- good + correct use of devel + shared libs look good + only warning from rpmlint was "W: hpic-devel no-documentation" which can be safely ignored APPROVED. Please s|remode|remove| above. ;-) (In reply to comment #1) > nits: > - please remode the INSTALL and COPYING files from %doc since the former > provides no useful info to an end user and the latter is just another > copy of the GPL v2 I'll certainly remove the INSTALL file, but isn't it the inclusion of the COPYING file required as per the PackageReviewGuidlines (even though it means people probably have 3 billion copies of the GPL installed): "MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." Yes, you're right about the COPYING file. Please include it and ignore my earlier comment. I just saw the commit log of this import and I think there should be some small changes to the spec file: The URL line should be the Source0 line and the URL from the %description should be moved to the URL line. I am not sure about this, but I think that the -devel package should require cfitsio-devel because the header file includes headers from that package. (In reply to comment #5) > The URL line should be the Source0 line and the URL from the %description should > be moved to the URL line. > > I am not sure about this, but I think that the -devel package should require > cfitsio-devel because the header file includes headers from that package. I agree on both counts. These fixes are in 0.52-3, which I'll build shortly. > %files devel
> %{_libdir}/libhpic.so
%defattr(..) missing. If rebuilt, files in binary package will be owned
by build user.
Re comment 7(In reply to comment #7) > > %files devel > > %{_libdir}/libhpic.so > > %defattr(..) missing. If rebuilt, files in binary package will be owned > by build user. > You're right. Fixed in 0.52-5 |