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 #4 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-08 19:46:58 EDT --- Hi Michal, thanks for the fast reply. I believe we are very close to approval, just two minor items: (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > 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. Ok, good! Only one small request: please can you rename the -docs package into -doc? I'm not 100% sure about this because I've found on my system packages with both naming conventions. However, the packaging guidelines only mention -doc: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > * 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. Great - looks like Mark already added it. It is sufficient to include it in the package once upstream provides a new tarball. No further action needed right now. ;-) > > * 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. Just for reference: the new source tarball matches upstream - md5sum: 941dacde04db15164c9aca5a1d856665 libxdg-basedir-1.0.1.tar.gz > > * 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. Sorry, probably there was a small misunderstanding here. Adding "Requires: pkgconfig" is sufficient since it will provide the ownership of %{_libdir}/pkgconfig. So it is not needed that libxdg-base-devel owns the pkgconfig directory itself (and other packages with *.pc files don't do it either... ;-) ). Best regards, Christian -- 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