Since -devel has files in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig , to avoid possible unowned 
dirs, it should:
Requires: pkgconfig

(In reply to comment #1)
> Since -devel has files in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig , to avoid possible unowned 
> dirs, it should:
> Requires: pkgconfig

It already does:

%package devel
Group:		Development/Libraries
Summary:	Development tools for version 1.0 of libpng
Requires:	libpng10 = %{version}-%{release}, zlib-devel, pkgconfig

doh, sorry for the noise (I'm used to only looking at one Requires: item per 
line).

Hi, I will review this one for you. 

Review for release 1:

* RPM name is OK
* Source libpng-1.0.20.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of libpng10 looks OK
* rpmlint of libpng10-devel looks OK
* File list of libpng10 looks OK
* File list of libpng10-devel looks OK

Notes:

Looks good. I am happy, consider it APPROVED. Please remember to close the bug
report once this has been imported into CVS. 

I need some help with this. It's failing to build on x86_64:

http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/12809-libpng10-1.0.20-2.fc6/x86_64/build.log

At first I thought it was out-of-order building due to a broken Makefile and the
use of %{?_smp_mflags}, but that wasn't it. I now suspect it may be to do with
the use of assembly code. The strange thing is that it builds fine on x86_64
RHEL3 (the only x86_64 box I have access to).

It could probably be fixed by using the configure script instead of the old
Makefiles, but doing it that way I can't find any way to make it produce shared
libraries with an soname (libpng.so.2.1.0.20) that lines up with what's in
previous Fedora/Red Hat releases.

I have a x86-64 machine at work. I will try and load up FC5 on it and take a look. 

Thanks. I plan to replace my home machine with a 64-bit one next month but I'd
like to sort this out sooner :-)

argh... bab memory makes for very interesting errors not relating to libpng10. 

Hopefully be able to sort out this hardware by weeks end.

Hey Paul, just curious as to why we don't use the configure script in this package? 

I added 

./autogen.sh
%configure 

to the spec and it builds on x86-64 now. Though there are files that are not
listed in %files

I'd love to use the configure script. However, I can't find any way to tweak it
to get it to produce the right soname. For instance, the libpng10-1.0.18 package
in FC5 has libpng.so.2.1.0.18; it follows that this libpng10-1.0.20 package
should have libpng.so.2.1.0.20 for compatibility (which is the main reason for
the existence of this package) but I can't get the configure script, or more
exactly, libtool, to generate an object with that soname.

I think the configure script output could be useful though, as it should produce
the correct set of defines to be used when building the package using the older
Makefiles.

OK, I've managed to persuade, with the aid of a patch, the configure script to
generate the correct soname. Can you give this one a try on rawhide x86_64?

SPEC: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libpng10.spec
SRPM: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libpng10-1.0.20-3.src.rpm

Build on x86-64 now. Nice work fixing that. 

 13589 (libpng10): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded.
     Build logs may be found at
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/13589-libpng10-1.0.20-3.fc6/

Thanks for the review and the help.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libpng10
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: pghmcfc

libpng10 has been dropped from EL-6 (it was present in previous EL releases).

cvs done.