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: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-10 13:50 EST ------- Here we go: 1. package meets naming guidelines, but not packaging guidelines. What is %{_datadir}/autogen/libopts-27.4.2.tar.gz doing there? You may also shorten the -devel filelist by specifying %{_mandir}/man3/* instead of enumerating all manpages. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is correct. 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. license is open source-compatible (GPL). License text included in package. 7. CANNOT check if source files match upstream: $ spectool -g autogen.spec --19:12:18-- http://autogen.sourceforge.net/data/autogen-5.8.5.tar.gz => `./autogen-5.8.5.tar.gz' Resolving autogen.sourceforge.net... 66.35.250.209 Connecting to autogen.sourceforge.net|66.35.250.209|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 19:12:19 ERROR 404: Not Found. NOTE: on the download page, there is also a bzip2'd tarball, why not use that instead of .gz? 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. I haven't checked if the package builds in mock yet. 11. rpmlint is silent. 12. final provides and requires are sane: libguileopts.so.0()(64bit) libopts.so.25()(64bit) autogen = 5.8.5-5 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info /usr/sbin/alternatives autoconf ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libguile-ltdl.so.1()(64bit) libguile.so.12()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopts.so.25()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) autogen-devel = 5.8.5-5 = /bin/sh autogen = 5.8.5-5 pkgconfig 13. shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called appropriately 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. no duplicates in %files 18. file permissions are appropriate. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is missing and there is a test suite! 21. code, not content. 22. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 23. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 24. headers are in -devel 25. pkgconfig files are in -devel and Requires: pkgconfig is present. 26. no libtool .la droppings. 27. not a GUI app. 28. not a web app. Summary: NEEDSWORK Points 1,7 and 20. -- 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