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: rasqal - RDF query library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-17 02:15 EST ------- Builds fine on x86_64 development. rpmlint has this to say: W: rasqal invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0 W: rasqal-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0 W: rasqal-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0 rpmlint likes to see "Apache License" but still doesn't know what to do with the version; I would suggest using "LGPL or Apache License 2.0". W: rasqal no-version-in-last-changelog W: rasqal-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog W: rasqal-devel no-version-in-last-changelog The accepted changelog format includes "version-release" after the email address. E: rasqal binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/roqet ['/usr/lib64'] You should eliminate the use of rpath if at all possible. You can do this by adding BuildRequires: libtool, then adding "LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool" on the make line, and deleting any *.a files when you delete the *.la files. I've verified that this works but you should retest the package to make sure nothing has broken. Additional comments about the specfile: %makeinstall should not be used. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall Consider adding %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line. In addition, your passing of OPTIMIZE doesn't seem to have any effect; gcc is still called with the appropriate options even after deleting it. You use %{__make}, but don't use %{__rm} or %{__install}. Macro use should be consistent; it is up to you to use the style you prefer, but you should not mix styles. These are all pretty minor, and fixing them up doesn't seem to harm anything, but you should still test things out. Also, there seems to be an extensive test suite included. I added a quick %check section and it seems there are some off failures and such all over. I'm not sure if that's expected behavior or not. -- 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