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=494171 Marcin Łabanowski <chax@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chax@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Marcin Łabanowski <chax@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-08 14:35:26 EDT --- Note that it's a practice review, I need to do some in order to get a sponsoring. * Naming: OK * Version and release: OK * Legal: OK * No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries: OK * Spec Legibility: OK * Writing a package from scratch: OK * Modifying an existing package: N/A * Architecture Support: koji has built the package correctly, so I assume OK * Filesystem layout: OK - %{_datadir}/man/man5/hostapd.* - did you consider using %{_mandir} ? * Use rpmlint: OK * Changelogs: OK * Tags: OK * BuildRoot tag: OK * Requires: OK * BuildRequires: OK * Summary and description: OK * Documentation: not-OK - Did you think about including hostapd/README? - Did you think about building the documentation from hostapd/doc/ directory? I've made you a list of buildrequires for that: transfig, netpbm-progs, doxygen, graphviz, texlive-latex. I'm not sure if it's really necessary, since it contains information about API and friends and would make a little use for people outside the project. * Compiler flags: OK * Debuginfo packages: OK * Devel packages: N/A * Requiring Base Package: N/A * Shared Libraries: N/A * Packaging Static Libraries: N/A * Duplication of system libraries: OK * Beware of Rpath: OK * Configuration files: OK * Initscripts: not-OK - The package would certainly benefit from initscript, since it's a system daemon. * Desktop files: N/A * Macros: mainly OK - See my comment for "Filesystem layout" - You are mixing %{optflags} with $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. In my opinion it's not really bad, * Handling Locale Files: N/A, hostapd is not localised. * Timestamps: not-OK - Add -p to your install commands. * Parallel make: OK * Scriptlets: OK * Conditional dependencies: OK * Build packages with separate user accounts: not-OK ;) * Relocatable packages: OK * Code Vs Content: OK * File and Directory Ownership: OK * Users and Groups: N/A, hostapd requires root priviledges, doesn't it? * Web Applications: N/A * Conflicts: OK * No External Kernel Modules: OK * No Files or Directories under /srv: OK * Bundling of multiple projects: OK * All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment: not-OK - The Patch1 is Fedora-specific, but it doesn't say so. There is no description of it neither. * Application Specific Guidelines: N/A -- 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