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=507083 --- Comment #13 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-04 18:04:18 EDT --- Hello Maxim, thanks for updating the package. At the same time I've been doing a detailed review of your previous version (1.3.5-2). I found several problems. Here are my results so far. rpmlint output: poco-doc.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/poco-doc-1.3.5/css/styles.css poco-doc.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/poco-doc-1.3.5/css/prettify.css poco-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation poco-odbc.x86_64: W: no-documentation poco-testing.x86_64: W: no-documentation poco-zip.x86_64: W: no-documentation poco.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. All these rpmlint warning can be ignored. Though the BuildRoot tag might be useful to add if you are going to have an EL-5 branch too. Let's see if the package meets Review Guidelines ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines ): OK rpmlint OK name meets Package Naming Guidelines (Personally I preferred the original name of "poco-testing", i.e. "poco-debug", because it has a precedent in "kernel-debug", but it's not a strong requirement. I'll leave the decision to you.) OK the spec file name matches the base package name Package must meet the Packaging Guidelines: BAD versioning: please use %{?dist} (not %{dist}) in the Release field. OK licensing ("Boost" is an approved license) BAD pre-built binaries found in the source tarball: Crypto/include/Poco/.DS_Store Crypto/include/Poco/._.DS_Store These must be removed during the %prep step. You should also ask upstream to remove them from future releases. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries ) OK spec is legible OK architecture support OK filesystem layout (FHS) OK changelog entries OK tags OK buildroot cleaned for %install OK buildroot cleaned in %clean OK Requires OK no PreReq OK no file dependencies outside allowed dirs OK BuildRequires OK Summary and Description (English, descriptive, no trademarks) OK encoding (ASCII) OK documentation (main documentation is split into *-doc) BAD compilation does not respect Fedora's compiler flags (%{optflags}) While observing the running build process, I could not see any mention of FORTIFY_SOURCE, stack-protector, etc. on the command lines of g++ invocations. OK debuginfo OK devel package OK subpackages require base package with fully versioned dep OK ldconfig OK no static lib BAD duplication of system libraries: poco-1.3.5-all/Foundation/src/ contains internal copies of zlib and pcre libraries. poco-1.3.5-all/XML/src/ contains a copy of expat. poco-1.3.5-all/Data/SQLite/src/ contains a copy of sqlite (the whole in a single 3.5 MB source *.c file!) The package must be modified to use system libraries. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries ) OK no rpath N/A config files N/A initscripts N/A desktop files OK macro usage N/A locale files N/A timestamps OK parallel make OK scriptlets N/A conditional deps OK file and dir ownership OK file permissions N/A users and groups N/A web apps OK no conflicts OK no kernel modules OK no files in /srv OK no bundling of multiple projects (combining the -all and -doc tarballs is acceptable, they're a single project) N/A bug links and comments for patches OK no epoch N/A no symlink hackery OK License field matches actual license (Boost) OK LICENSE file is packaged as %doc OK spec file is written in American English (AFAICT) OK sources match upstream source. sha256sums: 88bce8880bd380c2ca600cf170388eb0180b0c46fe500240efecc05bc62c618a poco-1.3.5-all.tar.bz2 48465ad08c9114f0fa16835344e775714fdebe93a564f4ce9b9843454aa48225 poco-1.3.5-doc.tar.gz OK package builds in Koji on all primary architectures OK package contains code or permissible content OK large doc in -doc subpackage OK missing doc should not affect runtime OK headers are in -devel N/A no pkgconfig files OK .so files in -devel OK no .la 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