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: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-09-12 23:16 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 6111e91b143a90afb30f7a8c1e6cbbd6 gnome-libs-1.4.2.tar.bz2 6111e91b143a90afb30f7a8c1e6cbbd6 gnome-libs-1.4.2.tar.bz2.1 see below OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang 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. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. You include COPYING as a %doc, but this package is released under the LGPL. Should change that to the COPYING.LIB file instead. 2. Are there any upstream/full links for the other source files? Source2: gnome-libs-pofiles.tar.gz Source3: db.1.85.tar.gz Source4: utf8-ta.po 3. I assume that this package won't work with db4, and needs the old db-1.85 thats included? 4. Is this needed, since extras doesn't ship on ia64? ## from db1 %ifnarch ia64 Conflicts: glibc-devel < 2.1.90 %endif 5. rpmlint has (on fc6/i386): W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.el W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.eo W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.he W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.hy W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.iso88592 W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.iso88595 W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ja W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/ gtkrc.ka_GE.georgianacademy W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ka_GE.georgianps W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ko W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.ru W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.th W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.tr W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.uk W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.vi_VN.tcvn W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.vi_VN.viscii W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.zh_CN W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnome/gtkrc.zh_TW.Big5 W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mime-magic W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mime-magic.dat W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/paper.config W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sound/events/gnome.soundlist W: gnome-libs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sound/events/gtk- events.soundlist Perhaps these should all be (noreplace)? E: gnome-libs non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper utmp E: gnome-libs setgid-binary /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper utmp 02755 E: gnome-libs non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/gnome-pty-helper 02755 E: gnome-libs-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: gnome-libs-devel no-documentation Can be ignored I think. on (fc6/x86_64): E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gconfigger ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-dump-metadata ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-name-service ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/loadshlib ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome_segv ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-gen-mimedb ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-moz-remote ['/usr/ lib64'] E: gnome-libs binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/goad-browser ['/usr/lib64'] Is there some way to remove the rpath? -- 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