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=497001 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-10 21:51:43 EDT --- Builds find and rpmlint is silent. There is a simple test program included; is there any reason not to run it? I see that you had commented out a build dependency on ruby, so perhaps you intended this. I guess it takes a while (almost exactly 3 minutes on my 2.4GHz 8-core Nehalem machine) but I doubt it will need to be built often. Could you add the sentence "auto-nng is a software for analysis and classification of data, using artificial neuronal networks." to the beginning of %description? It makes a little more sense that way. You use both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} forms. You can use which ever you prefer, but you must be consistent. The compiler flags are not correct. You need to pass %{optflags} (or $RPM_OPT_FLAGS if you prefer) to the compiler. It looks like you just need to pass CFLAGS to the Makefile, but you may need to patch out the '-O3' call unless you can demonstrate that it helps. The debuginfo package is broken because -g isn't passed to the compiler. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 1beff6a1ff8bdafcd945627d4d2a6087bb3ada0c34f1071e6b8ea842d30d9fc3 auto-nng.v1.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. X specfile does not use macros consistently. * summary is OK. ? description could use a tweak. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are not correct. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. X debuginfo package is mostly empty. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: auto-nng = 1.5-1.fc12 auto-nng(x86-64) = 1.5-1.fc12 = (none) X %check is not present, but there's a test suite. * 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 * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * 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