Sure takes a while to build...  And no SMP make!  (Not your fault, of course.)

Is there some reason you have no %files section for the main package?  Does this
package only build static libraries?

> Is there some reason you have no %files section for the main package?  
> Does this package only build static libraries?

Yes, yes.  (-:

There doesn't seem to be any precedent for having a -devel package with no base
package, but looking at the (finally) built output of this package I can't see
any other way you'd package it.  It's just some header files, one ".a" static
library and some documentation.

There's also a debuginfo package created, but it contains no files.  I think it
should be disabled.

Any other opinions?  I see nothing else wrong with the form of this package, and
will review and most likely approve it unless someone objects to the idea of
having a -devel package with no base package.

Well there are some precedent. libnet, libcaca, the cernlib at some point, and
others, I believe...

Also other Macaulay2-related static-lib pkgs: libfac, factory.

I'll look into why/how -debuginfo is empty.

Sorry, for some reason I looked at the SRPMs.  After seeing other packages that
do the same thing I can find no more objections.

OK, builds completed in mock on i386 and x86_64 (development branch).  rpmlint
complains:

W: ntl summary-not-capitalized high-performance algorithms for vectors,
matrices, and polynomials
E: ntl configure-without-libdir-spec

The latter is bogus; this isn't a proper GNU configure script.  Instead it's
just a wrapper for a Perl script that doesn't take the usual arguments.

Full review as soon as I get home from work.

So everything looks good except for the empty debuginfo package and the one
capital H in the summary.

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.  It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
 (Upstream should probably be nudged to include the GPL in their tarball.)
* source files match upstream:
   1d2a683ecbc12cdf03bf92dbc97c0dd4  ntl-5.4.tar.gz
   1d2a683ecbc12cdf03bf92dbc97c0dd4  ntl-5.4.tar.gz-srpm
* package builds in mock.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directory it creates (except for /usr/lib, allowed)
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* all headers and static library are in -devel package.  (Everything is in the
-devel package....)
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
* doesn't own directories owned by other packages.

%changelog
* Tue Apr 11 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 5.4-2
- Capitalize %%summary
- disable -debuginfo, includes no debuginfo'able bits


Spec Name or Url: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/fedora/SPECS/ntl-5.4-2.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/fedora/all/SRPMS.stable/ntl-5.4-2.src.rpm

Looks good, builds OK on x86_64 and i386 and doesn't produce an empty -debuginfo
package.

APPROVED

Thanks, importing... build queued.