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: gtksourceview-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@xxxxxxxxx 2006-07-19 22:56 EST ------- That patch to autoconf and automake should go upstream if %(libdir) is the accepted place to drop this. - rpmlint checks return: W: gtksourceview-sharp strange-permission gtksourceview-sharp-libdir.patch 0666 W: gtksourceview-sharp strange-permission gtksourceview-sharp.spec 0666 Ignorable, I'm not scared of 666. W: gtksourceview-sharp incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0-0.10-12 2.0-12.fc6 Confusion due to the 2.0-0.10 naming in the tarball. Should be fine as long as the release is always bumped if that extra version number is updated, to say 2.0-0.11. E: gtksourceview-sharp no-binary E: gtksourceview-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Expected for mono. W: gtksourceview-sharp-devel no-documentation Fine. - package meets naming guidelines Just watch out for that version. - package meets packaging guidelines BLOCKER - license is wrong, is LGPL. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR (hopefully autoconf and automake will go away sometime) - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r For mono specific stuff the build does call gacutil like the guidelines say. -- 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