Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: debarshi.ray@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/libgdl.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/libgdl-0.7.7-1.fc8.src.rpm
Description:
GNOME Devtool Libraries contains components and libraries that are intended to be shared between GNOME development tools, including anjuta2, gnome-build and gnome-debug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@gmail.com 2007-12-22 15:44 EST ------- Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=307078
I inherited the anjuta-fdl package from Paul F. Johnson, and am going to rename it as libgdl. See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-December/msg00830.htm...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
alexl@users.sourceforge.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |alexl@users.sourceforge.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From alexl@users.sourceforge.net 2008-01-09 05:23 EST ------- Taking for review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
alexl@users.sourceforge.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From alexl@users.sourceforge.net 2008-01-09 05:49 EST ------- - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - Spec file matches base package name. - Spec has consistant macro usage. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - License: (GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+) - License field in spec matches - License file included in package Only GPL included, LGPL also needed? - Spec in American English - Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: yes - Package needs ExcludeArch - BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot - Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage not needed - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - Package owns all the directories it creates. - No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane - Obsoletes seem sane:
Provides: anjuta-gdl = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: anjuta-gdl < 0.7.7-1 Provides: anjuta-gdl-devel = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: anjuta-gdl-devel < 0.7.7-1
SHOULD Items:
- Builds in koji using rawhide tag on all supported archs - Sane scriptlets. - Subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - Has dist tag
Issues:
1. Minor: add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig" 2. Minor: Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?
Outstanding issues are minor, can be fixed after import:
APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From alexl@users.sourceforge.net 2008-01-09 05:58 EST ------- It also occurred to me that perhaps gnome-gdl might also work as a name, to make it clear that it is for GNOME related build tools. libgdl might be confused as a library that gdl is dependent on, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@gmail.com 2008-01-09 06:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
It also occurred to me that perhaps gnome-gdl might also work as a name, to make it clear that it is for GNOME related build tools.
I chose libgdl since that is what Debian and Ubuntu calls it, and I thought it would be a good idea to have consistent naming across distributions.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@gmail.com 2008-01-09 06:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
Issues:
- Minor: add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig"
The following notation automatically mentions the "Requires(post): ...": %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
- Minor: Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?
The upstream tarball does not provide the text of the LGPL. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-90d644ce2c5... we should only include a license file as documentation if upstream provided it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@gmail.com 2008-01-09 06:58 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libgdl Short Description: Components and library for GNOME development tools Owners: rishi Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
NB: I inherited anjuta-gdl and renaming it to libgdl. So anjuta-gdl should be deleted from CVS.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
debarshi.ray@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From alexl@users.sourceforge.net 2008-01-09 06:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6)
- Minor: add: "Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig"
The following notation automatically mentions the "Requires(post): ...": %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
OK, didn't know that, great.
- Minor: Only GPL included, LGPL also needed?
The upstream tarball does not provide the text of the LGPL. According to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-90d644ce2c5...
we should only include a license file as documentation if upstream provided it.
sure, but we are supposed to pester upstream to ask them to include it.
Anyway, none of these are blockers, so go ahead and import...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-01-09 13:18 EST ------- cvs done.
For anjuta-gdl, please follow the package end of life page at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
------- Additional Comments From alexl@users.sourceforge.net 2008-01-12 20:33 EST ------- Debarshi: Once you've EOLed anjuta-gdl as per comment #9, can you please close this bug as NEXTRELEASE?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgdl - Components and library for GNOME development tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426599
debarshi.ray@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org