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=681976 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-05-03 15:04:40 EDT --- Review openfst-1.2.7-1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681976 Builds okay with Fedora 16 x86_64 mock. *** Notes worth reading. - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines Yes matches tar ball name. - Spec file matches base package name. It does. - Spec has consistant macro usage. Yes. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. *** Add %{?_isa} tags to BuildRequirs and internal Requires. - License ASL 2.0 - License field in spec matches Very clear licensing with a COPYING file and headers on each source file/ - License file included in package Yes. - Spec in American English Yes - Spec is legible. Yes. - Sources match upstream md5sum: Yes. $ md5sum openfst-1.2.7.tar.gz ../SOURCES/openfst-1.2.7.tar.gz 97196a97d2a1ec88d612321e64dac2e4 openfst-1.2.7.tar.gz 97196a97d2a1ec88d612321e64dac2e4 ../SOURCES/openfst-1.2.7.tar.gz - BuildRequires correct *** Add %{?_isa}. - Spec handles locales/find_lang Not needed - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. Not relocatable. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. It does. - Package has a correct %clean section. It does. - Package has correct buildroot Not needed anymore. - Package is code or permissible content. It does. - Doc subpackage needed/used. Not needed. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. They are, - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun It does. - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig No .pc files - .so files in -devel subpackage. They are. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} *** It does but it should be %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} these days. - .la files are removed. None present. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file No GUI. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. Mock. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. None - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. It does not. - Package owns all the directories it creates. It does. - No rpmlint output. This is quite verbose so I'll put in a sepearte comment. - final provides and requires are sane: === openfst-1.2.7-1.fc16.src.rpm provides === openfst-1.2.7-1.fc16.src.rpm requires libicu-devel === openfst-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm provides arc_lookahead-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact16_acceptor-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact16_string-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact16_unweighted_acceptor-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact16_unweighted-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact16_weighted_string-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact64_acceptor-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact64_string-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact64_unweighted_acceptor-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact64_unweighted-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact64_weighted_string-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact8_acceptor-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact8_string-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact8_unweighted_acceptor-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact8_unweighted-fst.so.0()(64bit) compact8_weighted_string-fst.so.0()(64bit) const16-fst.so.0()(64bit) const64-fst.so.0()(64bit) const8-fst.so.0()(64bit) ilabel_lookahead-fst.so.0()(64bit) libfstcompact.so.0()(64bit) libfstconst.so.0()(64bit) libfstfarscript.so.0()(64bit) libfstfar.so.0()(64bit) libfstlookahead.so.0()(64bit) libfstpdtscript.so.0()(64bit) libfstscript.so.0()(64bit) libfst.so.0()(64bit) olabel_lookahead-fst.so.0()(64bit) openfst = 1.2.7-1.fc16 openfst(x86-64) = 1.2.7-1.fc16 === openfst-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm requires libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libfstfar.so.0()(64bit) libfstscript.so.0()(64bit) libfst.so.0()(64bit) libicuuc.so.46()(64bit) /sbin/ldconfig === openfst-debuginfo-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm provides openfst-debuginfo = 1.2.7-1.fc16 openfst-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.2.7-1.fc16 === openfst-debuginfo-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm requires === openfst-devel-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm provides openfst-devel = 1.2.7-1.fc16 openfst-devel(x86-64) = 1.2.7-1.fc16 === openfst-devel-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm requires libfstcompact.so.0()(64bit) libfstconst.so.0()(64bit) libfstfarscript.so.0()(64bit) libfstfar.so.0()(64bit) libfstlookahead.so.0()(64bit) libfstpdtscript.so.0()(64bit) libfstscript.so.0()(64bit) libfst.so.0()(64bit) openfst = 1.2.7-1.fc16 === openfst-tools-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm provides config(openfst-tools) = 1.2.7-1.fc16 openfst-tools = 1.2.7-1.fc16 openfst-tools(x86-64) = 1.2.7-1.fc16 === openfst-tools-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm requires config(openfst-tools) = 1.2.7-1.fc16 libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfstfarscript.so.0()(64bit) libfstfar.so.0()(64bit) libfstpdtscript.so.0()(64bit) libfstscript.so.0()(64bit) libfst.so.0()(64bit) libicudata.so.46()(64bit) libicui18n.so.46()(64bit) libicuuc.so.46()(64bit) openfst = 1.2.7-1.fc16 Items to fix/change/comment on. 1) Fix Add %{?_isa} where appropriate. 2) Wait to see next comment about rpmlint output. -- 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