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=553186 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-08 20:31:24 EDT --- * The pkgconfig patch is acceptable. Though, simple libraries like this one (empty cflags, trivial ldflags) can be checked with autotools macros. * There is a nasty autoheader warning. A simple "touch config.h.in" in %prep fixes it here. * A shorter .bz2 tarball is available upstream. * If you don't plan to maintain this for EPEL, you could simplify the spec file in several places. Are you aware of that possibility? * The short "README" file is very confusing as it refers to something that isn't possible with your package. * No API documentation. Not even the .rst files are included. Can the html doc be generated within Fedora? Or could you mirror a snapshot of the online docs and use them in a second Source archive? * The %changelog refers to the future: Thu Dec 07 2010 * Why is "make check" not run? It looks suitable for a %check section. And even if it didn't work or didn't return compatible error codes, it's common practise to run it in %check to fill the build logs with as many test results as possible. -- 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