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=225990 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx, | |notting@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |notting@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-08 23:43:59 EDT --- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. *** Could use %{?_smp_mflags}. - License - LGPLv2+ (lib), GPLv2+ (browser) - License field in spec matches - *** Technically, it's the -devel package that has the GPLv2+ bits. - License file included in package - *** COPYING.LIB not included. - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 0be51ee3069a2ef21d98561ee28036dd263ac08b401776fe9164e084825ffd84 libbonoboui-2.24.3.tar.bz2 OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A - BuildRequires correct - *** automake/autoconf aren't required in the kernel version (it's not patched.) libXt-devel is certainly extraneous. Some of the versions in the spec don't quite match the configure script, but... whatever. - Spec handles locales/find_lang - OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig -OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK - .la files are removed. - OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - *** Browser doesn't have one. Don't think it needs it. - 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 - No rpmlint output. src rpm: libbonoboui.src: W: no-buildroot-tag Ignorable, not needed. libbonoboui: libbonoboui.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libbonobo.so ['/usr/lib64'] libbonoboui.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libbonoboui-2.24.3/AUTHORS libbonoboui-devel: libbonoboui-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/bonobo-browser ['/usr/lib64'] libbonoboui-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/test-moniker ['/usr/lib64'] libbonoboui-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/bonobo-2.0/samples/bonobo-sample-controls-2 ['/usr/lib64'] libbonoboui-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test-moniker libbonoboui-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bonobo-browser Warnings are ignorable. rpath should probably be fixed. AUTHORS can be dropped. - final provides and requires are sane: Nothing fishy here. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should build on all supported archs - OK - Should function as described. - OK - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. - Meh. Nothing critical. -- 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