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: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-08-02 14:51 EST ------- ok, here's a review: OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 8b4bfb078f2cc9e01f37d3d251672f75 tre-0.7.4.tar.bz2 8b4bfb078f2cc9e01f37d3d251672f75 tre-0.7.4.tar.bz2.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. Issues: 1. Not a blocker, but you might consider using a dist tag: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag 2. The devel package should Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 3. rpmlint has some output: (all warnings, but should be cleaned up) W: agrep summary-ended-with-dot Approximate grep utility. W: tre macro-in-%changelog doc W: tre macro-in-%changelog post W: tre mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs W: tre-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for use with the tre package. W: tre-devel no-documentation (the last one should be ignored) 4. You mention crashes with the x86_64 version. Perhaps the package should be ExcludeArch'ed for now until the bug is found/fixed? I don't have a x86_64 or ppc test machine here, perhaps someone else would like to give it a try on those arches before approval? -- 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