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=697829 --- Comment #2 from Jan Safranek <jsafrane@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-19 08:58:34 EDT --- Listing MUST review items where I have comments, all others are OK. # MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] rpmlint complains: libpipeline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execve -> executive, execked, execute IMHO it's OK and does not block the review. # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] Looking at the code, the actual license is GPLv3+, not GPLv3. This should be fixed. # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] The %{?_isa} part is missing in the .spec file. Is it something new? It wasn't required when I did last review (it's a long time ago...). # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] gnulib has exception, but Packaging guidelines suggest that the package should Provide: bundled(gnulib) All SHOULD items are OK. Looking at the .spec file itself, I notice few cosmetic nits: - Source0 could contain %{version} so it does not need to be manually updated with every rebase. - Both %description texts should end with dot '.' at the end. - There is additional 'ls -la' in %install section - it does not harm, nor does it help anything. - %post can be simple %post -p /sbin/ldconfig, like %postun is. Feel free to ignore any of these comments. So, apart from the license, suboptimal Requires: in devel subpackage and missing Provides:bundled(gnulib) the package is IMHO fine to be approved. -- 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