Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478316 manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-30 15:07:59 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: farsight2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 15) => not a big deal, but would be nice to have this fixed before commit binary RPM: farsight2-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation => not a problem, docs are in -devel farsight2-devel: empty farsight2:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:LGPLv2+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: a031937091ab40be75d8a154f01de081c9fc8615 farsight2-0.0.6.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [?] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [x] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes. === Issues === 1. cosmetic problems with the source rpm: - Duplicate BuildRequires: glib2-devel (by gstreamer-devel) - farsight2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 15) 2. adding INSTALL="install -p" to the make install line will preserve the timestamps of the docs; I've verified that in a local mock build, you get for instance: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2320 Dec 12 00:35 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/pt02.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 472 Dec 12 00:35 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/right.png -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2331 Dec 12 00:35 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/style.css -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 406 Dec 12 00:35 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/up.png instead of: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2320 Dec 30 20:26 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/pt02.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 472 Dec 30 20:26 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/right.png -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2331 Dec 30 20:26 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/style.css -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 406 Dec 30 20:26 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/farsight2-plugins-0.10/up.png ================ *** APPROVED *** but please take care of the above ================ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review