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=581181 --- Comment #2 from Michal Ambroz <rebus@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-24 13:06:26 EDT --- Hello Pavel, thank you for picking review of this package. The review is great and I will try to fix the issues. >[+] MUST: rpmlint >scalpel.src: E: unknown-key (MD5 Package is signed with my gpg id and rpmlint reports this as error, this shuold be gone when rebuilt by koji. >[-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. >1) Tarball contain binary windows files in %prep. fixed - deleted in prep phase >2) For what you are include scalpel.conf also in doc? For nothing. Original idea was to include sample config, but then I decided it would be better to have one usable global configuration out of the box so I patched the code for opening the configuration file >3) Lines #BuildRequires: #Requires: is garbage. Garbage out >4) You include patch without comment with link to bugtracker. There is no bugtracker for the package. I have sent now the patch to author to consider include it in the mainstream version and added comment. >[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. >Source tarball contain two files prioque.h and prioque.c with other author than >scalpel and without licence mention. It require clarification. I believe author of all files is the same - just he made Ph. D. (congratz Golden G. Richard III ! :) . Have you found it by some automated tool? I will contact the author to consider putting the license to the files, but I assume it is not a problem right now. >[-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set >%attr specification is ambiguous in: >%attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/%{name} I do not understand what you mean - this executable will be set with 755 permissions ownership by root. How ambiguous is that? >Some more things: >1) It is ambiguous explicit archiving man page because it will be done >automatically. Ok ... removed >2) If you do not plan maintain it for EPEL 4-5 (guess by presented builds) tag >BuildRoot is ambiguous. I do plan to maintain for EPEL as well >3) I have not completely understand what you are doing wit config on sed. Can >you describe slightly? I have put description to comments In distribution configuration everything is commented out. Sed will enable most of the file extensions to be found. http://rebus.webz.cz/download.php?get=scalpel.spec http://rebus.webz.cz/download.php?get=scalpel-1.60-2.fc13.src.rpm Best regards Michal Ambroz -- 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