Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 - compatability package for libosip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215185 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-11 23:08 EST ------- Wanting to help get the broken package report down some, here's a review. ;) See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - 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: 40ee3ec89030f0d6dfdb2cf6100e6685 libosip2-2.2.2.tar.gz 40ee3ec89030f0d6dfdb2cf6100e6685 libosip2-2.2.2.tar.gz.1 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 - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun See below - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 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. 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 Issues: 1. Your naming doesn't seem right to me... compat-libosip2-2.2.2-2.2.2-5 should be just compat-libosip2-2.2.2-5 right? ie, the 2.2.2 in the Name should be removed. 2. Shouldn't you Provides: libosip2 = %{version}-%{release} instead of the Conflicts? Then this version will replace the older libosip2 packages and provide the same things for things like linphone? 3. The devel subpackage has a .pc file, so it should Requires: pkgconfig 4. rpmlint says: W: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 summary-not-capitalized oSIP is an implementation of SIP Can be ignored. W: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.2.2-4 2.2.2-5.fc7 Missing changelog entry for changes to the compat package? E: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 obsolete-not-provided libosip2 See issue #2? W: compat-libosip2-2.2.2 summary-not-capitalized oSIP is an implementation of SIP E: compat-libosip2-2.2.2-devel obsolete-not-provided libosip2-devel Same thing with the -devel subpackage... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review