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: Conga - Remote management interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137 ------- Additional Comments From dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-30 15:23 EST ------- Not a full review, just a few comments from looking at and building the package: * It would be better to split the package into several source packages (e.g., conga, luci, ricci, and cluster-*). That would probably also help expediting the review; when you do that, file separate review requests for each package * Please run rpmlint on the generated packages and either fix the errors/warnings it generates, or explain here why you think they are ok to ignore * You shouldn't require /bin/bash, it's in the list of requirement exceptions (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30) * The summary of the packages should be a short one-sentence description of each package. * There is no need to have a 'Provides: %name' for each package * You shouldn't hardcode the distribution in the release tag; instead use '6{%?dist}' as the release - the build system will fill in the appropriate value (.fc5, .fc6 etc.) * Do not manually set _libdir on x86_64; it's automatically set to the right thing by rpm * Why does ricci have a number of 'Requires: ricci-xyz = version' and 'Provides: ricci-xyz' ? Shouldn't the provides be versioned, too ? There's no need for those requires -- 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