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: libprelude - Prelude library collection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209214 ------- Additional Comments From ruben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-21 13:30 EST ------- Ah, much better, now it builds in my mock as well. I'm not a sponsor, but I do have a few notes: Review for release 4: * RPM name is OK * Source libprelude-0.9.11.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint of libprelude looks OK Needs work: * Use of buildroot is not consistant (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * rpmlint of libprelude-devel: Please fix the errors and warnings * The package should contain the text of the license Please add COPYING to %doc, and ChangeLog (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * The package owns /usr/share/doc, which is a standard directory (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Config files of libprelude: Is there a reason the config files are in /etc/prelude/prelude and not in / etc/prelude? Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: gnutls (by gnutls-devel) * The latest upstream version is 0.9.12. rpmlint output for libprelude-devel-0.9.11-3.i386.rpm W: libprelude-devel summary-ended-with-dot Header files and libraries for libprelude development. W: libprelude-devel non-standard-group Environment/Libraries E: libprelude-devel standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc Thanks, Ruben -- 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