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=473583 --- Comment #13 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-18 16:54:05 EDT --- Bad: 1. The version in the changelog, should be 3.0-4, not 3.0.4. 2. The sums don't match to upstream: Upstream SHA1: aeb7887cb4935756cf77deb1ea86973dff0e32fb Your tarball's SHA1: fb2476bf83cbd14f2030c7c66b7485e49e36671c 3. There is a static lib in the -devel package. Unless we have a good reason, we don't package static libs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries 4. Devel packages should require the main package (Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}) Good: - rpmlint checks return: wordnet.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.4 ['3.0-4.fc11', '3.0-4'] - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - 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 - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - no .la files I'd also prefer if you didn't wildcard everything so broadly in %files. That approach leads to extra files getting packaged upon updates without noticing it. Clean up the bad items, and I'll give this another pass. -- 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