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=551914 --- Comment #11 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-07 13:55:45 EST --- Thanks for the new pacakge. Here is now the full review: * rpmlint: TODO rpmlint SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec SRPMS/monodevelop-database-2.2-6.fc13.src.rpm RPMS/i686/monodevelop-database-*2.2-6.fc* SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 4) monodevelop-database.src:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 4) monodevelop-database.i686: E: no-binary monodevelop-database.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-database.i686: W: no-documentation monodevelop-database-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. - no-binary, no-documentation and only-non-binary-in-usr-lib are false positives (but you could probably package the Changelog as %doc in the main package) - mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs should be fixed * naming: OK - name matches upstream - spec file name matches package name * sources: OK - md5sum: 430571024f88c87d5104121739c6ab7e monodevelop-database-2.2.tar.bz2 - sources matches upstream - Source0 tag ok - spectool -g works * binaries in upstream sources: TODO find -name '*.dll' ./contrib/MySql/MySql.Data.dll - to prevent that this assembly accidentally leaks into the binary package, please delete it in the %prep section * License: TODO - License in spec file does _not_ match the actual license spec file: GPLv2+ COPYING, sources: MIT * package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": OK * spec file written in English and legible: minor TODOs - the %description of the devel package should be rephrased a little bit: "Database Add-in for MonoDevelop. Development package. The %{name}-devel package contains development files for %{name}." Probably the last sentence would be sufficient. - please split the very long line of the BuildRequires so that it fit into 80 characters for better readability - please append a "/" to the URL to get a 100% correct URL ;-) * compilation: TODO - does not build in koji (dist-f14) for x86_64 - since this project uses a standard autotools-based configure script, please use %configure * BuildRequires: OK * locales handling: OK * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a) * package owns all directories that it creates: OK * %files section: OK * no files listed twice in %files: OK * file permissions: TODO - %defattr used - *.mo files are executable, but should have permissions 644 - *.dll files are not executable, however the current convention is, that they should be executable, too * %clean section: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK, code only * main package should not contain development related parts: OK * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a) * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) * *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a) * devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK * packages must not contain *.la files: OK * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK * all filenames UTF-8: OK * functional test: OK - only roughly tested that some menus and dialog boxes can be opened correctly * debuginfo sub-package: OK (n/a) -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review