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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-14 10:25 EST ------- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-10 14:41 EST ------- Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the following: W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release} Other than that I'm happy with the package. An additional couple of ignorable rpmlint warnings popped up for the -debugger package: W: curry-debugger no-documentation W: curry-debugger devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a but these are no big deal. 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. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has some ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: curry-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6 = /bin/sh gcc libgmp.so.3()(64bit) curry-debugger-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm curry-debugger = 0.9.10-2.fc6 = curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6 * no shared libraries are present. * 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. O plenty of headers, but this is a compiler. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. O static libraries, but this is a compiler and there's no reasonable way to eliminate them. * 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