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=543608 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-03 20:31:20 EDT --- Nevermind, they are relative. Formal review: Package name: ok Spec file name: ok Packaging guidelines: the guidelines nowadays contain language that forbids explicit dependencies for stuff thats already pulled in via library dependencies. So the Requires for dbus, dbus-glib, glib2, polkit, parted, udev, libatasmart should be dropped unless you need the specific minimal versions. It might be nice to have a /usr/libexec/udisks/ instead of dumping all the helpers into /usr/libexec, but thats not a must-fix. License: ok License field: ok License file: ok Spec file language: ok Spec file readable: ok Upstream sources: need upstream location Buildable: ok ExcludeArch: ok, none BuildRequires: ok Locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok, no libs system libraries: ok, no libs relocatable: no directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok header files: ok, none static libs: ok, none pc files: ok, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires, which I believe was recently accepted shared libs: ok, none devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok, none gui apps: ok, no gui app file ownership: ok %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok # TODO: should be fixed upstream Is it ? In summary: - remove explicit library dependencies, then the package is acceptable. - additionally, consider using a subdir in /usr/libexec and fixing the TODO upstream -- 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