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=465858 Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |skasal@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |skasal@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-19 13:48:47 EDT --- OK source files match upstream: 688560de1cde57ab8d9e0ef7dc6436dbf0267fe8884f9014e50ff92b297b01a8 afpfs-ng-0.8.1.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. FAIL Summary for %package -n fuse-afs is wrong OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct, though I'd prefer: BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. FAIL no duplicates in %files. #fedora-devel 17:11 < tibbs|h> You can include COPYING exactly once. Do not duplicate doc files, remove %doc lines from subpackages. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock. OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires are sane, attached at the end of the review OK no %check because the package contains no testsuite OK shared libraries present, ldconfig is run OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets look fine OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. FAIL Please use %configure --disable-static and drop %exclude *.a OK desktop files valid and installed properly. Fix the three details marked FAIL, and put an updated spec to the martyr. ==== afpfs-ng-0.8.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm: --provides: libafpclient.so.0()(64bit) afpfs-ng = 0.8.1-1.fc11 afpfs-ng(x86-64) = 0.8.1-1.fc11 --requires: /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libafpclient.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libfuse.so.2()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2)(64bit) libgmp.so.3()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) ==== afpfs-ng-devel-0.8.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm: --provides: afpfs-ng-devel = 0.8.1-1.fc11 afpfs-ng-devel(x86-64) = 0.8.1-1.fc11 --requires: afpfs-ng = 0.8.1 libafpclient.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 ==== fuse-afp-0.8.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm: --provides: fuse-afp = 0.8.1-1.fc11 fuse-afp(x86-64) = 0.8.1-1.fc11 --requires: /bin/bash libafpclient.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libfuse.so.2()(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.2)(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgmp.so.3()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) -- 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