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=226415 --- Comment #18 from Daniel Novotny <dnovotny@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-15 07:53:46 EST --- nobody was assigned, I'll take this review now OK source files match upstream: 103c9828f24820df86e55e7862e28974 sgml-common-0.6.3.tgz OK source contains full URL OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license (GPL+). OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK* BuildRequires are proper. - there's a require on older version of automake, from the previous review text I see the package needs it BuildRequires: libxml2 >= 2.4.8-2 also looks quite suspicious - isn't the version number superfluous? I see there is version 2.7.6 of this library in F10 and no older versions are available OK compiler flags are appropriate. - no compilation necessary OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock. OK debuginfo package looks complete. - no debuginfo necessary BAD rpmlint is silent. sgml-common.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: sgml-common-automake.patch sgml-common.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: sgml-common-0.6.3-docdir.patch - unused patches ought to be commented out, I see there is a comment in the spec you want to keep this patches in the SRPM but not apply them: does this make sense? why? xml-common.noarch: W: no-documentation - this is OK I guess, the description of the package seems to be enough OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code vs content - can be seen as both, but that's ok OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. seems OK overall, just need to clarify the unused patches and maybe the BR on libxml2 should be without version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review