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: ntl: High-performance algorithms for vectors, matrices, and polynomials https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188499 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-10 21:02 EST ------- So everything looks good except for the empty debuginfo package and the one capital H in the summary. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. (Upstream should probably be nudged to include the GPL in their tarball.) * source files match upstream: 1d2a683ecbc12cdf03bf92dbc97c0dd4 ntl-5.4.tar.gz 1d2a683ecbc12cdf03bf92dbc97c0dd4 ntl-5.4.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock. * BuildRequires are proper. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directory it creates (except for /usr/lib, allowed) * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * all headers and static library are in -devel package. (Everything is in the -devel package....) * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * doesn't own directories owned by other packages. -- 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
