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=575485 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-21 19:10:15 EDT --- Hey Alex. I'd be happy to review this for you. OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 0623b8fb08ae1b28af08b2cdbd66b662 libharu-2.1.0.tar.gz 0623b8fb08ae1b28af08b2cdbd66b662 libharu-2.1.0.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun See below - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. The .so files are not quite right here. the .so should be in the devel subpackage. The versioning is odd also, as they have: libhpdf-2.1.0.so instead of libhpdf.so.2.1.0 ? I guess it might be ok to have *.so in the devel package and *-2.1.0.so in the main pkg? Do any of the demo programs work if you do this? 2. rpmlint says: libharu.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libharu-2.1.0/README libharu.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libharu-2.1.0/CHANGES libharu-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libharu-devel-2.1.0/README libharu-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libharu-devel-2.1.0/CHANGES This can be ignored, but you should probibly not include those both in both files. The base file should be fine, as thats required by the devel package. libharu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package This seems like it might be fallout from the weird library naming. ;( 3. Please don't include the INSTALL file. There is no need to tell people how to build the file if they are installing the package. 4. Is it worth including the demos in the devel package as doc files? -- 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