1:09 p.m.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Summary: Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData
protocol
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: bnocera(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc10.sr...
Description: libgdata is a GLib-based library for accessing online service APIs
using the GData protocol --- most notably, Google's services. It provides APIs
to access the common Google services, and has full asynchronous support.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:10 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
--- Comment #1 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> 2009-04-01 14:10:23 EDT
---
Scratch build at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1271012
This package will replace the python-gdata dependency for Totem, as the YouTube
plugin is being replaced by a C version.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2:11 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2009-04-01 15:11:17 EDT ---
Is there really no upstream URL? You probably want to remove the commented URL
tag as it seems unrelated. Unfortunately without an upstream site I don't
have a clue as to how you find new version of the source. You also get a few
rpmlint complaints:
libgdata.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libgdata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libgdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
which are OK as long as there really isn't some upstream site to point to.
Also:
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
The library is linked against a few things that are not really necessary. This
should cause any real problems as those will always be loaded anyway.
I don't see where the license is LGPLv2+. The source looks to me as if it's
GPLv3+, which might have implications for your planned usage. Unpack the
source and grep for 'of the License'. It's true that for whatever bizarre
reason, upstream included version 2 of the actual LGPL text, but that has no
bearing on the actual license that's on the code. Can you query upstream about
this?
As far as I can tell, there is a test suite but it makes calls out to network
services which must already be set up, so there's no way it could be run during
the build process.
So really the only must-fix blocker issue I see is the license tag.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
bb19c90e8bb2f1ead0d7f407ba15e2f6b6d8a2a355b263ca9338bf68846a5b72
libgdata-0.1.0.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
libgdata(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libgdata-devel-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
pkgconfig(libgdata) = 0.1.0
libgdata-devel = 0.1.0-1.fc11
libgdata-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
=
/usr/bin/pkg-config
gtk-doc
libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(libsoup-2.4)
pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)
* %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time.
* shared libraries installed:
ldconfig is called properly.
unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:08 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Philip Withnall <bugzilla(a)tecnocode.co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bugzilla(a)tecnocode.co.uk
--- Comment #3 from Philip Withnall <bugzilla(a)tecnocode.co.uk> 2009-04-01 17:08:04
EDT ---
I'm the author of libgdata. I've just released version 0.1.1, which fixes the
licencing issues (standardises on LGPLv2.1) and adds a website:
http://live.gnome.org/libgdata.
Re. test suites, you can run the "general" test program, which makes no network
requests (and will continue not to do so, since there are no "general" GData
service providers).
What do you mean by "network services which must already be set up"?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:21 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
--- Comment #4 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> 2009-04-01 17:21:00 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Is there really no upstream URL? You probably want to remove the
commented URL
tag as it seems unrelated. Unfortunately without an upstream site I don't
have a clue as to how you find new version of the source.
That would be because I asked upstream to make their first release shortly
before posting this bug :)
You also get a few
rpmlint complaints:
libgdata.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libgdata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libgdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
which are OK as long as there really isn't some upstream site to point to.
Also:
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0
libgdata.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgdata.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
The library is linked against a few things that are not really necessary. This
should cause any real problems as those will always be loaded anyway.
I don't see where the license is LGPLv2+. The source looks to me as if it's
GPLv3+, which might have implications for your planned usage. Unpack the
source and grep for 'of the License'. It's true that for whatever bizarre
reason, upstream included version 2 of the actual LGPL text, but that has no
bearing on the actual license that's on the code. Can you query upstream about
this?
LGPLv2+ it is, fixed in 0.1.1
As far as I can tell, there is a test suite but it makes calls out to
network
services which must already be set up, so there's no way it could be run during
the build process.
It's not run by default.
So really the only must-fix blocker issue I see is the license tag.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
bb19c90e8bb2f1ead0d7f407ba15e2f6b6d8a2a355b263ca9338bf68846a5b72
libgdata-0.1.0.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
libgdata-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
libgdata(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libgdata-devel-0.1.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
pkgconfig(libgdata) = 0.1.0
libgdata-devel = 0.1.0-1.fc11
libgdata-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc11
=
/usr/bin/pkg-config
gtk-doc
libgdata = 0.1.0-1.fc11
libgdata.so.2()(64bit)
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(libsoup-2.4)
pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)
* %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time.
* shared libraries installed:
ldconfig is called properly.
unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
New version at:
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata.spec
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~hadess/libgdata/libgdata-0.1.1-1.fc10.sr...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2009-04-01 17:23:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What do you mean by "network services which must already be set
up"?
It looked to me as if it would attempt to connect to a preexisting google
account to extract calendar data. I only briefly skimmed the source for the
tests so I may have come away with the wrong impression.
In any case, the environment in which packages are built for Fedora does not
have any reasonable form of network access, so that's right out, but if it's
reasonable to run the "general" test then it would be good to do so.
I'll look over the updated package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:43 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
--- Comment #6 from Philip Withnall <bugzilla(a)tecnocode.co.uk> 2009-04-01 17:43:35
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
It looked to me as if it would attempt to connect to a preexisting
google
account to extract calendar data. I only briefly skimmed the source for the
tests so I may have come away with the wrong impression.
It does, but the account username and password are hardcoded, and the account's
specially registered for testing purposes, for what it's worth.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2:46 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2009-04-02 15:46:54 EDT ---
OK, this looks good now. However, given that Philip indicates that we can run
the general test without network access, I think we should do it. This works
for me:
%check
# Only the general test can be run without network access
cd gdata/tests
./general
It only seems to test two things, but that's better than testing nothing. If
you agree, please consider this approved and add something like that when you
import the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:25 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
--- Comment #8 from Philip Withnall <bugzilla(a)tecnocode.co.uk> 2009-04-03 02:25:29
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
It only seems to test two things, but that's better than testing
nothing. If
you agree, please consider this approved and add something like that when you
import the package.
None of the test programs are particularly comprehensive yet, but I do plan to
improve their coverage.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:27 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> 2009-04-03 06:27:05 EDT
---
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libgdata
Short Description: Library for the GData protocol
Owners: hadess
Branches: F-11 devel
InitialCC:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:46 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> 2009-04-03 16:46:31 EDT ---
cvs done.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8:46 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 493432] Review Request: libgdata - Library for the GData protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493432
Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #11 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> 2009-04-06 09:46:22 EDT
---
Built in F11 and devel, thanks!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5507
days inactive
5512
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
11 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla