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: rasqal - RDF query library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-19 15:38 EST ------- Thanks for changing the makeinstall... here's a review: 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 (LGPL or apache 2.0) 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: 403b95de5c23124f6a6491bdde3eba86 rasqal-0.9.12.tar.gz 403b95de5c23124f6a6491bdde3eba86 rasqal-0.9.12.tar.gz.1 See below - 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 - .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. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK (386/x86_64) - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version Issues: 1. 0.9.13 seems to be out, might update to that? 2. Are there some missing BuildRequires? checking for pcre-config... no checking for pcre-config... no checking for pcre... not present checking for xml2-config... no checking for libxml2 library... no 3. The devel subpackage has a .pc, so should Requires: pkgconfig? 4. rpmlint says: W: rasqal invalid-license LGPL or Apache Software License 2.0 W: rasqal invalid-license LGPL or Apache Software License 2.0 W: rasqal-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache Software License 2.0 W: rasqal-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache Software License 2.0 This can be ignored as discussed above. -- 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