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=678955 --- Comment #7 from Jeff Moe (jebba) <moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-05 16:46:08 EST --- * Sat Mar 5 2011 Jeff Moe <moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.3.1-5 - Enable parallel compiling. - Corrected license to GPLv2 with exceptions. - Improved -devel Requires for multilib. - Remove BuildRoot tag. - Remove %%clean section - Change mv and mkdir to direct commands, not macros. ============================================================= http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/jebba/reprap/opencsg.spec http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/jebba/reprap/14/SRPMS/opencsg-1.3.1-5.fc14.src.rpm ============================================================= (In reply to comment #6) > MUST items: > - rpmlint output: > opencsg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libopencsg.so.1.3.1 > __glewGenOcclusionQueriesNV > ... I don't get this when I run rpmlint: $ rpmlint opencsg-*1.3.1-5* opencsg-devel.i386: W: no-documentation opencsg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > This means that you need to change the link command for libopencsg.so so that > -lglew IS included, and -lGLU, -lQtGui, -lQtCore, and -lm are NOT included. OK, I will look into that. > Why are you passing -j1 to make? If parallel make does not work (see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make), then please > include a comment stating so. For awhile I thought it may have been breaking the build, but it appears to have been something else, so it is now SMP. > - license field: the license file lists an explicit exception to GPLv2, so the > license field should read "GPLv2 with exceptions". Done. > - consistent use of macros: OK, although I personally detest the %{__mkdir}, > %{__mv}, and %{__rm} macros :-) I changed them to just plain mkdir/mv. I just noticed now I missed rm. I fixed that for the next push. > - -devel requires main package: OK, although you should consider using %{?_isa} > for multilib safety, like so: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Done. > - package functions as described: reviewer has no easy way to check This is being built as a dependency of OpenSCAD, which is also in my repo, btw. > Note that the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section in the spec file are > unnecessary on currently supported versions of Fedora. Removed. > Also, the HTML files > you put in %doc refer to files in the img directory; please add img to %doc. > There may be value in including (parts of) the example directory in %doc as > well. Ay, missed this one on this pass. I'll take a look at it next round. Thanks for your review! :) -- 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