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=453850 --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-07 20:53:52 EDT --- OK, here are my comments, notes, questions etc. - rpmlints globus-openssl.x86_64: E: no-binary globus-openssl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation globus-openssl-progs.x86_64: W: no-documentation can be ignored. ? Where does the version number come from? and why is the release number 0.x? * The license seems to be just ASL 2.0. Is there any non-trivial differences? If not, please use ASL 2.0: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses ! No need to BR: pkgconfig on the main package. It will be picked up by openssl-devel. ! No need to Requires: openssl on the progs subpackage since it already requires the main package which requires openssl. ! No need to Requires: zlib-devel and pkgconfig on the devel subpackage since openssl-devel will pull them up. * The new guidelines suggest that %global should be preferred over %define ! Could you collect all your "%global"s at one place? ! Please make the descriptions span 80 columns ? Why are you packaging the .filelist files? ? Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. /usr/share/globus and /usr/share/globus/packages is already owned by globus-core. Shouldn't you just put globus-core as a requirement to this package? Is this package useful without globus-core? -- 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