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=667416 --- Comment #1 from Dan HorÃk <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2011-01-07 10:30:50 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: 5dcb211602b1639a6cda5055f02245b8f94d0559 util-linux-2.19-rc1.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. BAD license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with proper scriptlets OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel OK pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - the uuidd, libmount, libblkid, libuuid subpackages must include their license text as %doc - rpmlint throws a lot of warnings/errors, mostly can be ignored I think, but they deserve a review - the compatibility Provides/Obsoletes should be cleaned up for the update path I suggest to use "Obsoletes: util-linux-ng < 2.19" (instead of < 2.18.1) - you can drop the Buildroot tag and the clean section, they are not needed in recent Fedoras (and next RHEL) -- 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