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=705319 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-07-26 15:06:10 EDT --- If libthai is not available on EPEL-5, then please change the macro to %if 0%{?rhel} == 5 BuildRequires: libthai-devel %endif which reflects the purpose a lot better. Using a single comparison operator and taking its negative is not very clean, since you can simply combine them to %if 0%{?rhel} == 0 or use %if 0%{?fedora} > 12 etc. ** I guess ``default'' in the %description should just read "default". ** rpmlint output: $ rpmlint sombok-* sombok.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sombok-2.0.5/COPYING sombok-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. This is basically OK, but you should contact upstream and ask them to update COPYING to a current version. ** Review: MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Fix the macro as instructed above. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - Not all source files contain license headers, but README specifies license as GPLv2+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz ../SOURCES/sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2 sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz af78a04e07998aedc12a841fa2b168d2 ../SOURCES/sombok-2.0.5.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK - In principle doxygen documentation exists, but none is (or even can be) actually generated. - This would go into -doc. MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK - I don't agree with Veeti. Since README is anyway included and it seems to hold the same information as README.ja_JP, I would include the latter one as well. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. NEEDSWORK - You need to add Requires: pkgconfig if you want to ship for EPEL-4 or EPEL-5. ** Please fix the macro and the quotation marks before import to GIT. This package has been 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