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: uuid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192564 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-23 16:16 EST ------- I think the license is essentially the MIT license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php It's probably a better fit than "Distributable". rpmlint, as usual, finds something to complain about: E: uuid binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/uuid ['/usr/lib64'] W: uuid unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libuuid.so.14.0.22 W: uuid-c++ unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libuuid++.so.14.0.22 W: uuid-c++ no-documentation W: uuid-dce unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libuuid_dce.so.14.0.22 W: uuid-dce no-documentation W: uuid-dce-devel no-documentation W: uuid-pgsql no-documentation W: uuid-php no-documentation The no-documentation ones are OK. The unstripped object warnings are problematic; I don't know what to do about those. The rpath problem can be made to go away by adding: BuildRequires: libtool then changing the make line to: make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool %{?_smp_mflags} and then adding this after the make install: rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.a * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: fdfe93bc134dfb73814456c3b444dda1 uuid-1.4.2.tar.gz fdfe93bc134dfb73814456c3b444dda1 uuid-1.4.2.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. (I didn't realize you could list them in the subpackage declarations.) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint complains of rpath and unstripped libraries. * final provides and requires are sane. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called where necessary. (Some libraries are internal to Perl, PHP, pgsql, etc. so ldconfig is not called for those packages.) Unversioned libraries are in -devel subpackages. * packages are not relocatable. * own the directories they creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests seem to pass. * scriptlets present and quite sane. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in -devel subpackages. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review