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=490399 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-18 22:13:16 EDT --- See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License 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: 9c1dcba372e2a56d6011ad807abc80e6 webkit-1.1.3.tar.gz 9c1dcba372e2a56d6011ad807abc80e6 webkit-1.1.3.tar.gz.orig See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. I'm a bit confused by what package name we should use here. domain: webkitgtk.org content on website: WebKitGTK+ link to source on website: WebKitGTK+ tar file downloaded: webkit-1.1.3.tar.gz So, the choices seem to be 'WebKitGTK+', 'webkit', 'webkitgtk'. Can you please ask upstream what the desired package name should be? Along with what case? ;) 2. Weird license issue: JavaScriptCore/runtime/DateMath.h has a odd multilicense. I am assuming we are distributing it under LGPLv2+. Should we delete the MPL parts as it suggests? Or do we care? 3. A few items from the build.log: checking whether to enable geolocation support... no checking whether to enable WML support... no checking whether to enable support for SVG filters... no checking whether to enable code coverage support... no These might be missing buildrequires, or might be disabled for a reason, but worth looking into. 4. rpmlint says: WebKitGTK.x86_64: W: no-documentation WebKitGTK-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation as you say, can be ignored. -- 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