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: libedit - The NetBSD Editline library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181369 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@xxxxxxxxx 2006-03-21 19:06 EST ------- You are only required to included a file with the license text if the source archive includes it. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines One can't tell if the authors really agree to the exact license text. They say berkley style so you can specify License: BSD, but remove the license text. Then talk to the authors about including the license text. Why BuildRequires: gpm-devel? I can't figure that one out. Don't put the snap maro in the change log, use the exact number. That will get updated, and you want the change log to remain the same. Going through the usual checklist is pretty good: - rpmlint checks return: W: libedit-debuginfo objdump-failed not critical - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD) OK We don't know what the text should be though. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r -- 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
