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=489929 --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2009-03-30 10:13:18 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD source files match upstream: BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. 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 pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - full URLs for Sources are missing - the %name tag should be all in lowercase to be consistent with archive name (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines) - it's preferred to have the Requires for the devel sub-package on separate lines - rpmlint complains a bit: libHBAAPI-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI.src: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA => SNIA license was recently added to the list of good licenses and is not yet known to rpmlint libHBAAPI.src: E: invalid-spec-name => package name and spec filename are not in sync libHBAAPI-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation => can be ignored - you can apply the "includes" patch supplied by the hbaapi_build archive instead of using an own copy -- 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