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=510822 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-10 21:28:04 EDT --- I'm a bit confused about the versioning. Is the "-1" in the tarball indicative of some sub-version thing? Will they release 0.2-2 in the future? What would you call this package in that case? Upstream also produces RPMs and seems to use the dashed portion of the version as their Release: (or perhaps that's just coincidental), but it should be obvious that we can't do that. The blank line at the start of %description does make it into the final package and should probably be removed. Did you intend not to build and package the documentation? It seems like that would be a good idea, but I haven't checked that the documentation is actually useful. Why does this require pkgconfig? I don't see any .pc files in the package. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 9b29c4b6401adf20ce1ab3c47fe71066ca7952eb10db4b1e6b1440973f616cda maloc-0.2-1.tar.gz ? name is OK; not sure about package versioning. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. ? final provides and requires: maloc-0.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm libmaloc.so.1()(64bit) maloc = 0.2-1.fc12 maloc(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc12 = /sbin/ldconfig libmaloc.so.1()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) maloc-devel-0.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm maloc-devel = 0.2-1.fc12 maloc-devel(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc12 = libmaloc.so.1()(64bit) maloc = 0.2-1.fc12 ? pkgconfig * %check is present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are installed: ldconfig called properly. unversioned .so links are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files (but maybe there should be?) * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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