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=225999 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-31 19:46:12 EDT --- OK, here's the review, with questions (?), issues (*) and comments (!). ? From what you told, I understand that you are the upstream maintainer too. So why are the patches? This confuses me. Can't they be integrated into the source? Also why use autoreconf? ? Why are those header files are getting removed? And if they are irrelevant, why are being installed by the Makefile? An explanation please, preferably in the SPEC file as a comment. * Generally, all the patches need to be explained as comments in the SPEC file (and they need to be sent upstream but we skip this part). It's best to keep the SPEC file at a state where a new package maintainer can take it over easily without spending hours to figure out what's going on. * Now, the rpmlint complaints: libdrm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: libdrm-2.4.0-no-freaking-mknod.patch should be removed if it's useless libdrm.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0755 we should have 644 for source files libdrm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/91-drm-modeset.rules this %files entry should be a %config libdrm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation at the least, the file "libdrm/ChangeLog" and the "tests" directory can go in here. * %description should be descriptive, not a carbon copy of the summary. * libdrm/TODO should go to %doc * The upstream should be advised to put a copy of the full text of the license in a seperate COPYING file. ! The timestamp of the sourcefile is wrong (should be downloaded with "wget -N" or such) ! BR: pkgconfig is not required since libxcb-devel will pull that up. * /etc/udev/rules.d is not owned. So we must require the package that owns it (which, I think, is udev). * Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package. * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review