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=731191 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-17 09:00:46 EDT --- naming: ok license: BSD, ok sources: ok b85a0f4ab711e2d4f73a40e2e371f5ae libspnav-0.2.2.tar.gz scriptlets: ok 1. MUST: build doesn't use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. maybe use something like: --- configure.opt 2011-08-17 07:47:12.275486930 -0500 +++ configure 2011-08-17 07:52:24.599256027 -0500 @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ fi if [ "$OPT" = 'yes' ]; then - echo 'opt = -O3' >>Makefile + echo 'opt = -O3 $(RPM_OPT_FLAGS)' >>Makefile fi if [ "$X11" = 'yes' ]; then 2. MUST. static library build/packaged. Please provide justification/rationale for doing so, or remove it. 3. SHOULD. In %files, be explicit about what soname to package, so future abi bumps don't come as a surprise, use something like %files %{_libdir}/libspnav.so.0* instead? 4. SHOULD. Given all the configure/makefile hacks (optflags, DESTDIR, lib64) in the .spec, I'm wondering if it may be more worthwhile to make an upstreamable patch instead? I can help do that, if that's agreeable with you. -- 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