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=527706 --- Comment #13 from Dave Ludlow <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-17 18:05:26 EDT --- +/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines, except one small issue in the versioning scheme - since you're packaging pre-release (from VCS), then "Release" field should start from 0. Done +/- The sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. However, since this is a pre-release and no tarball was provided by upstream, the only way to check the integrity of the sources, is to make diff against freshly checked out VCS tree. So, please, provide the instructions in comments somewhere within spec-file on how to create this checkout. Done +/- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Unfortunately, the package failed to build on EL-5 due to missing dependencies on mingw32-{libtiff|proj}. Please, keep this in mind, then you'll requesting cvs branches. Noted - The package must NOT own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately, it owns %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig which is already owned by mingw32-filesystem. Fixed SPEC: http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-libgeotiff.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1813287 -- 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