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=506755 --- Comment #15 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-06-22 16:11:03 EDT --- - Now there's -iquote. twice in the build flags: it's already added in the INCDIRS variable where you replaced -I- to -iquote. , but you have added another one in the Linux section after -icompat. - I wouldn't use a patch for the iquote issue, I'd just use a sed oneliner in %setup which does the same thing: sed -i "s| -I- | -iquote. |g" GNUMakefile That or I'd merge the iquote thing with the optflags patch. Anyway, this is up to you. To me unnecessary patch files are just unnecessary trouble if they aren't needed for very long (this should be fixed in the next upstream release, right?). ** rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - License is ISC and BSD instead of plain BSD, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing. * Most of the files are licensed under ISC * Some of the files in compat/ are under the 2-clause and 3-clause BSD licenses => resulting license is ISC and BSD. (You can use Debian's licensecheck.pl as a first step to audit the licenses.) MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK - No license file included, you should ask upstream to add one. SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK ** So, apart from the license issue this package is good to go. I won't give you an approval yet, I want to see some more action on your part first. -- 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