Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-28 10:34 EST ------- Here's the review: 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines, however, I'd like to see some reasoning why /usr/libexec/gnustep is used instead of %{_libdir}/gnustep and, similarly, %{_datadir}/gnustep/Libraries instead of %{_libdir}/gnustep/Libraries 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root NOT correct, should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. 7. source files match upstream: 1883a6387405e51ff4c384fb5cc547a7 gnustep-make-1.12.0.tar.gz 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. package builds in mock (fc5,devel). 11. rpmlint shows errors, but they can be ignored, as discussed in comment #1: E: gnustep-make non-executable-script /usr/share/gnustep/makefiles/executable.template 0644 E: gnustep-make non-executable-script /usr/share/gnustep/makefiles/java-executable.template 0644 12. final provides and requires are sane: config(gnustep-make) = 1.12.0-5.fc6 gnustep-make = 1.12.0-5.fc6 = /bin/csh /bin/echo /bin/sh config(gnustep-make) = 1.12.0-5.fc6 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) rtld(GNU_HASH) 13. no shared libraries are present. 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. no duplicates in %files. 18. file permissions are appropriate 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not necessary. 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. no headers. 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. not a GUI app. 29. not a web app. To summarize: all seems fine except 1. and 4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review