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=225978 --- Comment #6 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-24 12:46:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > It's translated as part of the specspo package. > > Okay, then it has to wait until F11 is released. You can add a comment to the > spec file about the need to fix the summaries, however! > > Review for 1.2.86-1 as follows: You know, you could have mentioned more of these items in the initial review. :) > - Is it really necessary to have the documentation in the devel package too? > I'd prune these. There's no dependnecies between the subpackages, and given the recent discussions on where license files need to be, it seems more prudent to put them in both. > X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. > > - dist tag is present. > MUST: Add this. It's not listed in Packaging/Guidelines as a must, so I don't think it's really needed. > X BuildRequires are proper. > * Please clean the conflicts, requires and buildrequires. ideally they should > be given one per line in alphabetical order Also seems a bit nitpicky, but sure. > - static libraries are in static package > * The devel package needs to Provides: kudzu-static=%{version}-%{release} Added. -- 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