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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-11 00:19 EST ------- This review assumes you switch the dist tag around as necessary to build. I find it rather odd that the upstream tarfile is ends in .tar.gz but isn't actually compressed. I'm surprised rpmbuild handled that, but it did. You include the COPYING file as %doc, but it just refers to the LICENSE file which you don't package. I suggest packaging LICENSE and dropping COPYING. There's not really any reason to include a copy of COPYING (or LICENSE) in every subpackage although it doesn't hurt. If you want to do so, include LICENSE instead of COPYING as above. Your %post script for the truetype fonts calls ttmkfdir, but you only require it for postun. It seems to me that the fonts-truetype-apl subpackage should have the same list of requirements for both post and postun, since it calls the same programs. You drop a file into /usr/share/X11/app-defaults without owning that directory, yet none of your dependencies will create it for you. (In fact, currently the libX11.so dependency will pull in nx if the libX11 package isn't already installed, although that's not a problem this package should try to solve.) I think it's best to own that directory. By the way, just what is that app-default file for? I understand it specifies and alternate set of key mappings for xterm, but how would it get used? Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible; text of license included upstream but not packaged. * source files match upstream: 2366264664c0b352b907b411af48e5aa aplus-fsf-4.20-2.tar.gz 2366264664c0b352b907b411af48e5aa aplus-fsf-4.20-2.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: aplus-fsf-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig fonts-apl libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf-devel-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm aplus-fsf-devel = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = aplus-fsf = 4.20.2 libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf-el-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm aplus-fsf-el = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = aplus-fsf xemacs fonts-truetype-apl-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm fonts-apl fonts-truetype-apl = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/mkfontdir chkfontpath fontconfig ttmkfdir fonts-x11-apl-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm fonts-apl fonts-x11-apl = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/mkfontdir chkfontpath fontconfig * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called properly. * 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 (that I could find). ? many scriptlets present; I'm not sure about the dependencies. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present, in -devel package. * 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