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=499579 --- Comment #2 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-07 09:33:48 EDT --- I've reviewed the package and it looks ok. There are only some minor and uncritical issues: * rpmlint: TODO rpmlint SPECS/libxdg-basedir.spec SRPMS/libxdg-basedir-1.0.0-1.fc10.src.rpm RPMS/i386/libxdg-basedir-* libxdg-basedir.i386: W: no-documentation libxdg-basedir-devel.i386: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. In general it is not a problem to have no documentation if a package doesn't provide any. ;-) However, in this specific case the package provides a doxygen API documentation (make doxygen-all). It would be good if it could be added to the devel package. * naming: OK - name matches upstream - spec file name matches package name * sources: TODO - e32bcfa772fb57e8e1acdf9616a8d567 libxdg-basedir-1.0.0.tar.gz - sources matches upstream - Source0 tag ok - spectool -g works - upstream version 1.0.1 was released a couple of weeks ago, please update to the new version (according to upstream's git repo it looks like a minor bug fix release) * License: TODO - License MIT acceptable - License in spec file matches the actual license (MIT license header in libxdg-basedir-1.0.0/src/basedir.c ) - No License file included, so there is no need to package it. - It would be better if upstream would provide a license file. According to the Review guidelines the packager is encouraged to query upstream to include it. However this will not block the review. * spec file written in English and legible: OK * compilation: OK - supports parallel build - RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used - builds in mock (F10) - builds in koji: F10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1394643 F11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1394648 F12: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397616 * BuildRequires: OK - no build requires are necessary * locales handling: OK (n/a) * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK * package owns all directories that it creates: TODO - %{_libdkir}/pkgconfig is created, but not owned by libxdg-basedir-devel - please add a "Requires: pkgconfig" to the devel package * no files listed twice in %files: OK * file permissions: OK - %defattr used - actual permissions in packages ok * %clean section: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (only code) * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * header files in -devel subpackage: OK * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) * package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": TODO (see above) * *.so link in -devel package: OK * - devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK * packages must not contain *.la files: OK * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK * all filenames UTF-8: OK * functional test: OK - compiling the provided test applications tests/testfind and tests/testdump - test apps compile successfully and the reported directory names seem to be meaningful * debuginfo sub-package: OK - non-empty - debuginfo file works together with gdb -- 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