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: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@xxxxxxxxx 2006-07-24 20:55 EST ------- Isn't building, is expecting to be in %{_prefix}/lib. Needs fixing. After defining a %{monodir} to be %{_prefix}/lib, rpmlint found: Source RPM: E: boo hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib Workaround to make it build. Ignore at least for now. W: boo rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot} W: boo mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Not important but easy to fix. W: boo patch-not-applied Patch0: build.patch Drop the patch. rpmlint of boo-devel: W: boo-devel no-documentation Ignore. rpmlint of boo: E: boo no-binary E: boo only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Expected for mono. E: boo-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package Drop the debuginfo package. Missing a update-mime-database scriplet. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets Good stuff: - package meets naming guidelines - license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent: defined %{monodir} - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file EXTRA STUFF FOR PACKAGES WITH DEVEL ====================================== - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r -- 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