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: lineak_defaultplugin - default actions for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191605 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-23 23:41 EST ------- Now %configure succeeds, but the build fails due to a missing BR: libxkbfile-devel. Adding that gets me through the build. For the purposes of this review, I'll assume that it's there since there's no point in another round; you can fix it when you check in. Review: * 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: 336b4fa5aa40b1166c2aa5418740357b lineak_defaultplugin-0.8.4.tar.gz 336b4fa5aa40b1166c2aa5418740357b lineak_defaultplugin-0.8.4.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (after adding libxkbfile-devel). * package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after adding libxkbfile-devel). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(lineak-defaultplugin) = 0.8.4-4.fc6 defaultplugin.so()(64bit) lineak_defaultplugin = 0.8.4 mediadetectplugin.so()(64bit) lineak-defaultplugin = 0.8.4-4.fc6 - config(lineak-defaultplugin) = 0.8.4-4.fc6 libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) liblineak.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) lineakd = 0.8.4 * shared libraries are present, but internal to lineakd so ldconfig isn't called. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- 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