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=634025 --- Comment #2 from Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-12 17:52:08 EST --- The package looks quite clean to me, except of one issue (see below). But since I am not yet sponsored I can only make an inofficial review. Inofficial review: [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = not ok [?] = see comments [+] rpmlint is quiet rpmlint polarssl-0.14.0-1.fc13.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/polarssl-devel-0.14.0-1.fc14.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/polarssl-0.14.0-1.fc14.i686.rpm ../SPECS/polarssl.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Used sources match width upstream sources (md5) [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture (i686) [?] ExecludeArch for x86_64?? SEE COMMENT BELOW [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [+] Package stores shared libraries and calls ldconfig in %post/%postun [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [o] Package does not install any directories to be owned [+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [o] No large documentation files [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [o] No Header files included [o] No static libraries [+] Library files ending with .so correctly in a -devel package [+] -devel package requires the package correctly as %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 ----- Comments: - Wouldn't it be good practice to comment on the patches (i.e. where do they come from, why are they needed and does upstream know about them)? I think the guidelines encourage you to do this (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment). - The package fails to build here on the x86_64 architecture. Some files seem to be put in $BUILDROOT/usr/lib but later %{_libdir} is expanded to /usr/lib64 (of course). My fault or a bug? ----- So in my opinion the package is ready after either dealing with the x86_64 issue, excluding this arch or tell me what I did wrong. ;-) -- 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