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=640356 --- Comment #13 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-07 19:40:34 EDT --- package name: ok, considering established practice for parallel-installable library versions spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: - buildroot cleaning in %install no longer necessary - %clean no longer necessary - this is a new package, it shouldn't inherit %changelog from clutter-gtk license: ok license file: ok license field: says lgpl, but COPYING is gpl. What gives ? spec language: ok spec readable: ok upstream sources: ok buildable: ok excludearch: ok buildrequires: ok locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok system libs: ok relocatable: ok dir ownership: ok duplicate files: ok file permissions: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok headers: ok static libs: ok shared libs: ok -devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: ok directory ownership: ok utf8 filenames: all ascii Aside: This allows clutter to be embedded in GTK applications. We hope with further work in the future clutter-gtk will also allow the reverse, namely embedding GTK in Clutter I think the second sentence is not really useful in a package description. Summary: Clutter-gtk development environment Do we capitalize package names in summaries ? Header files and libraries for building a extension library for the clutter-gtk Sounds like an incomplete sentence: for the clutter-gtk ... library ? Also shouldn't it say something more like 'Header files and libraries for developing software that uses clutter-gtk.' ? Summary: - fix the source location - clarify the license situation - consider some of the packaging guideline cleanups - drop old changelogs - maybe review some of the descriptive text -- 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