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=459872 Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-27 18:55:12 EDT --- A wannabee-packager-review: rpmlint output: asn1c.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/asn1c-0.9.21/samples/sample.source.LDAP3/sample-LDAPMessage-1.ber (misunderstood binary file) asn1c.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/asn1c/... 103 times (NOT include files but input to asn1.c for generating c code) Package and spec name fine. This is a fine and simple spec, legible and in American English AFAICS. I think it is a bit odd to mangle source files in %install so a folder can be specified as %doc in %files. Perhaps it could be moved to %build ... or ask upstream to change it. License "BSD" is OK; COPYING and most source contains a slightly truncated "FreeBSD BSD Variant (2 clause BSD)" and some even more free snippets and rfc texts. Upstream seems to be aware of potential licensing issues with the samples - they are carefully avoided. Source URL is fine. There are no build requirements, and it mock builds and installs on rawhide/f12. The sample source/makefiles in docs fails, partly because they are meant to be run from the source tree, partly because of the packaging and moving things around. And there is a bug in asn1c-quick.pdf: TestModule.asn1 doesn't work - it should probably be SEQUENCE instead of SET. But finally I managed to run asn1c and it seemed to work and generate something which seemed OK. But I don't have any real-world use case. There are no locales and no libraries and thus also no system libraries. Not relocatable, and creates and owns files/directories in usual locations and they are only listed once and with proper permissions. %files is however very explicit and verbose about %{_datadir}/%{name}. %clean is fine, and macros are used consistently. The package contains fine permissible code with supporting files. The fine documentation - and especially the samples - takes up several times more space than the rest. But this is a development package, so I think it is fine to keep it all in one package. No header files (except the data), no static libs, no pkgconfig, no libraries and especially no libtool archives, and no GUI. %install is fine and installs files with pure ascii names. Conclusion: Try to get the samples working - or at least make sure that they not are broken by the packaging. Consider simplifying %{_datadir}/%{name} in %files -- 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