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: glyph-keeper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185216 ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-13 01:34 EST ------- MUST ==== * rpmlint output clean * Source matches upstream e90e5103dce7d89aba2180bb830de8d9 glyph-keeper-0.29.1-no-freetype.zip * Package named appropriately * License file included * spec file legible and in Am. English * Compiles and builds in mock on FC5-i386 * No unnecessary BR: * No locales * No shared library files * Not relocatable * No duplicate %files * File permissions ok * buildroot cleaned in %install and %clean * macro use consistent * Contains code, not content * desktop file not needed * No directories to own OK == * -devel does not require the base package. This is ok because the package only builds static libs and thus, no files exist in the base package. * FC-4 package can't be made due to dependency on freetype >= 2.1.10 Any chance that freetype in FC-4 might be updated? NON-BLOCKER =========== * As with adime, please change the License: tag to "zlib License" to be more precise and file a RFE with rpmlint to accept this GPL-compatible license. * As noted, upstream only provides builds for static libraries, not shared libs. This is annoying, but non-blocking. If you end up writing a patch to generated shared libs, please make sure you pass it to upstream. MUSTFIX ======= * Include authors.txt and docs/* in %doc Fix up the %doc and I'll approve it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
