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: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204955 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-02 01:15 EST ------- This is a bit of an odd package, since it's noarch but has a configure script. It builds fine, though. rpmlint says: E: digikamimageplugins-doc configure-without-libdir-spec OK, it's complaining about the string "./configure" in a comment. Jeez. W: digikamimageplugins-doc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 2) Completely bogus. W: digikamimageplugins-doc patch-not-applied Patch1: digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-noarch.patch Indeed, the patch is not applied. I suppose you should choose which method you want to use to trick configure into not blowing up on a noarch build and elide the rest. W: digikamimageplugins-doc dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt_BR/digikamimageplugins/common ../common A bunch of these, all of which are normal for KDE applications. I can't run the full review because I can't get the upstream source. In fact, I can't even find a link to it on the upstream web site. I can't tell if the link in the spec is invalid or if it's just sourcefudge being useless as usual. Did you intend to leave out the dist tag? ? source files match upstream. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. ? latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has bogus or ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: digikamimageplugins-doc = 0.8.2-1 = digikamimageplugins = 0.8.2 * %check is not present; it's kind of tough to test documentation. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * documentation is exempted from the "code, not content" rule. -- 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