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 #3 from Michal Nowak <mnowak@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-08 06:49:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I've reviewed the package and it looks ok. There are only some minor and > uncritical issues: Thanks for the review, Christian. Good work. > * 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. Now we have -docs sub-package with Doxygen generated documentation. > * 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) Packed. > * 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. Encouraged :). You're in Cc. > * 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 Added. > * 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 Added to %make check. > * debuginfo sub-package: OK > - non-empty > - debuginfo file works together with gdb -- http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir.spec http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm -- 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