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 196529 - Review Request: gtkdatabox
Summary: Review Request: gtkdatabox
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Chris Weyl
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-06-24 00:56 UTC by Eric Work
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-08-11 17:51:59 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Eric Work 2006-06-24 00:56:45 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: GtkDatabox is a widget for the GTK+ library designed to display
large amounts of numerical data fast and easy.

This widget is used by a number of graphical applications, such as electronic design automation tools.

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-06-26 03:37:40 UTC
Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored
Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull
MUST Items:
     - MUST: rpmlint shows no error 
     - MUST: dist tag is present
     - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
     - MUST: The spec file name matching the base package gtkdatabox, in the
format gtkdatabox.spec
      - MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
      - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license LGPL.
      - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct.
      - MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates. 
      - MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
      - MUST: This package  have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
      - MUST: This package used macros.
      - MUST: Document files are included like INSTALL README.
      - MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
      - MUST: Header files are going in a -devel package.
      - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) are in a -devel package.
      - MUST: Library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel
      - MUST: This package contains shared library files located in the dynamic
linker's default paths, and therefore this package is calling ldconfig in %post
and %postun. But Devel package is NOT calling a %post/%postun section that calls
      * Source URL is present and working.
      * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:       
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
      * BuildRequires is correct
      * devel package contains  the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 

What you Need to do:-
      * add %post %postun for devel package also to call ldconfig

Comment 2 Eric Work 2006-06-26 03:48:12 UTC
I guess it sort of makes sense to add the %pre/%post to the devel packages but
the guidelines you pasted in say:

MUST: This package contains shared library files located in the dynamic
linker's default paths, and therefore this package is calling ldconfig in %post
and %postun. But Devel package is NOT calling a %post/%postun section that calls

The last two packages that were approved did not have these, but maybe I should
have added them.

Comment 3 Chris Weyl 2006-07-27 04:59:07 UTC
While the "no-docs" rpmlint warning is normally ignorable, given that there
doesn't appear to be any other documentation available, please include
examples/*.c in -devel under %doc.

Also, given that there is a shared library in the system path in -devel, you
need to put in place the %post/%postun scriptlets that are in place for the
main package.

+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license is open source-compatible.  (LGPL) License text included in package.
+ source files match upstream:
847d59ea06ef92426b0911785a5f0c8c  gtkdatabox-
847d59ea06ef92426b0911785a5f0c8c  gtkdatabox-
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ package builds in mock (x86_64: fc5 & devel).
X rpmlint is silent
+ Final provides/requires are sane.
** gtkdatabox-
== rpmlint
== provides
gtkdatabox =
== requires
** gtkdatabox-debuginfo-
== rpmlint
== provides
gtkdatabox-debuginfo =
== requires
** gtkdatabox-devel-
== rpmlint
W: gtkdatabox-devel no-documentation
== provides
gtkdatabox-devel =
== requires
gtkdatabox =

X shared libraries are present: proper %post/%postun in place for main package
but not -devel.
+ package is not relocatable.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
O %check is not present; package has no tests suite
X proper scriptlets present (%post/%postun for -devel).
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is (will be) small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
+ no headers in main package.
+ no pkgconfig files in main package.
+ -devel properly requires main package.
+ no libtool .la droppings.
+ not a GUI app.
+ not a web app.

Comment 4 Eric Work 2006-08-01 22:55:28 UTC
Sorry I don't have FC5 on my machine right now.  When I get the time later this
week I'll get a build system up and running in VMWare.  I will then add the
ldconfig lines to my devel package as requested.

Comment 5 Eric Work 2006-08-09 06:31:19 UTC

Sorry for the delay but here is the updated .spec file and .srpm.
I made the requested changes:
* add %post/%postun for -devel
* added examples/*.c to -devel

Also updated to the latest version.

Comment 6 Chris Weyl 2006-08-10 03:22:39 UTC
Spec file reflects requested changes.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.