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: wcstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450 dan@xxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From dan@xxxxxxxx 2006-06-09 11:09 EST ------- Here we go ... - rpmlint warns about not stripped binaries and libraries => add "-s" option when calling install for the binaries, could work also for the lib - when compiling edhead there is a security warning which recommends to use mkstemp instead of tempnam - you could create a patch and send it also upstream - Makefile should use ${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} for CFLAGS instead of direct "-g -O2" - when creating the shared lib use $(CC) instead of direct "cc" - licensing - in the source files for libwcs I see LGPL => the subpackage should have LGPL, but the license for the binaries is unclear, please clarify, you should (as written in the Package Review Guidelines) also ask the upstream to include separate license files with the distributed archive - the libwcs subpackage should go into System Environment/Libraries group, the -devel subpackage is correctly in Development/Libraries - the libwcs subpackage should provide libwcs.so.3 and not libwcs.so.3.0.0 - you need to play with the link stage (library's name/soname?) -- 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