Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libxml- Old libXML library for Gnome-1 application compatibility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205265 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-09-09 23:14 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 53846294aa850a7d042948176d1d19dc libxml-1.8.17.tar.gz 53846294aa850a7d042948176d1d19dc libxml-1.8.17.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. If the license is LGPL (as it appears to be), no need to include the COPYING file as that is the GPL. 2. The devel package has: Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version} That should probibly be: Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} 3. rpmlint says: E: libxml-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: libxml-devel no-documentation I think those can both be ignored in this case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review