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=677946 --- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-31 18:39:54 EDT --- Tried to a mock build for Fedora 14. Failed because liblouis-devel >= 2.2.0 doesn't exist in that release. Fedora 15 mock build succeeded rpmlint liblouisutdml.spec liblouisutdml.spec:70: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 70) Easily fixable. rpmlint *.src.rpm liblouisutdml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblouisxml -> libelous liblouisutdml.src:70: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 70) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint *.rpm liblouisutdml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblouisxml -> libelous liblouisutdml.src:70: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 70) liblouisutdml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblouisxml -> libelous liblouisutdml-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblouisutdml-java.noarch: W: no-documentation liblouisutdml-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lbu_devonly 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Packaging naming follows guidelines. Java bindings sub package is named correctly. pkgconfig file and soname is part of the devel package as required verified that sub packages either depend on the main package or have licensing information by themselves verified that jar files are not included in source but compiled according to the java packaging guidelines verified requires and post/postun is correct for info files The library is LGPLv3+ but the utilities are under GPLv3+ according to the readme and this is reflected correctly in the license tag. Actions required: Consider removing buildroot definitions and clean section since they are superfluous unless you are branching for older EPEL. Do a comment on top of Provides: bundled(gnulib) = 20091111 explaining it. Should liblouisutdml-java sub package co-own /usr/share/java or add a requires on jpackage-utils? Might consider whether documents should be part of a separate -docs sub package depending on how the library is used and which apps are likely to depend on them. It is helpful to explicitly name the binaries and a brief one liner in the description of -utils. Helps for users using yum search and yum info If liblouisutdml is successor to liblouisxml, should the former obsolete the latter? Could consider adding a brief one liner to the sub package descriptions describing the functionality of the main package. Can you explain the purpose of ln -s %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/j%{name}.jar /usr/bin/lbu_devonly doesn't have a man page and I recommend asking upstream to add them or add and send them upstream. Running /usr/bin/lbu_devonly in my Fedora 15 system causes a core dump. Look into that as well. -- 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