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 200722

Summary: Review Request: GraphicsMagick
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Andreas Thienemann <andreas>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Parag AN(पराग) <panemade>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: rdieter
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-11-27 13:38:11 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 Andreas Thienemann 2006-07-31 11:19:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/GraphicsMagick/GraphicsMagick.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/GraphicsMagick/GraphicsMagick-1.1.7-1.src.rpm
Description:
GraphicsMagick is a comprehensive image processing package which is initially
based on ImageMagick 5.5.2, but which has undergone significant re-work by
the GraphicsMagick Group to significantly improve the quality and performance
of the software.

Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2006-07-31 11:45:32 UTC
Offhand, 

1. it appears
%{_includedir}/GraphicsMagick
dir is unowned.

2.  in c++-devel subpkg:
Requires: %{name}-c++ = %{version}
Requires: %{name}-devel = %{version}
should be:
Requires: %{name}-c++ = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}

Comment 2 Andreas Thienemann 2006-07-31 14:07:42 UTC
thx, changes are incorporated at the original location

Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2006-07-31 14:11:21 UTC
FYI, whenever you make a change to the package, you ought to increment the 
Release tag and add a changelog entry accordingly.

Comment 4 Andreas Thienemann 2006-07-31 14:16:02 UTC
Ahhhhrgl. I thought we went over that topic often enough? Wasn't the consensus
that bumping release numbers and changelogs during review is purely optional? It
really doesn't serve as far as I can see, as the bugzilla entry contains more
information then the changelog ever will.

Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2006-07-31 14:21:22 UTC
I don't know who you're referring to as "we", but IMO, the same rules that 
apply toward Fedora (Core/Extras) releases should be applied during reviews too.

Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2006-10-01 19:51:57 UTC
just IMHO, bumping release and adding changelogs is very usefull during reviews 
to me. It allows me to see that something was addressed and when. 

Some submitters have used -0.X during reviews and then bump release to -1 on 
import. I think thats fine if you are more comfortable with that... 

Any chance you could push our a new release with new release/changelog entries?

Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-20 04:48:56 UTC
Andreas,
Is there any updates to package here?
Otherwise i can go for Official Review.

Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-20 05:43:48 UTC
Oki had a look at packaging of this software and found that GraphicsMagick-devel
reporting files listed as twice. keep only
%{_includedir}/GraphicsMagick and remove other 2 lines starting with %{_includedir}.
Reupdate package by changing release tag.

Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-24 04:24:59 UTC
Ping

Comment 10 Andreas Thienemann 2006-11-26 18:03:31 UTC
Package has been updated at the usual location.
Please take a look.

Comment 11 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-27 07:03:37 UTC
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
f75d830ca623bf10385b3ad62c48437a  GraphicsMagick-1.1.7.tar.bz2
+ 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 included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ COPYING included in %doc.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ .pc file present.
+ -devel,-c++, -c++-devel, -perl subpackages exists
+ as subpackages are packaging .so files post and postun called /sbin/ldconfig
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ perl subpackage followed perl packagaing.
APPROVED.


Comment 12 Andreas Thienemann 2006-11-27 13:38:11 UTC
thx for the review, package is in cvs.

Comment 13 Michael Schwendt 2006-11-29 01:12:53 UTC
owners.list entry is missing!