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=629744 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #8 from Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-01 19:02:42 EDT --- Picking up the review... 0.2.4 is slightly old now - upstream is up to 0.2.5 - but meh, no biggie. It builds on 64-bit F16 - good! rpmlint: [adamw@adam SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm sparkleshare.x86_64: E: no-binary sparkleshare.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib these are OK, as per Alex's comment #7, as this is a Mono app. smartirc4net isn't split out yet as that review isn't complete, I guess I'll pick that up too. So proceeding as if smartirc4net was split out: all the MUSTs and SHOULDs look good. Concerning the Mono policy, I have one issue: "For a while, Fedora considered mono packages to be architecture-specific, and installed assemblies to %{_libdir}. However, after discussions with upstream, we now consider mono packages to be architecture (and platform) independent. This means that mono packages should be correctly installed into the GAC in /usr/lib or installed into /usr/lib/PACKAGENAME. As a notable exception, any ELF binary libraries generated in a mono package must be correctly installed into %{_libdir}, because these files are architecture-specific." This spec installs both DLLs and the EXE to %_libdir, not /usr/lib . Are they 'ELF binary libraries' and hence arch-specific, or should they in fact be in /usr/lib ? Seems a bit odd that the file list specifies /usr/bin and /usr/share/blahblah; I'd expect to see %_bindir and %_datadir instead. I'd usually use a slightly less specific form for the manpage in the files list, so additional manpages get picked up without adjusting the spec, and if we ever decide to compress man pages with something other than gzip that wouldn't be a problem either. With the above caveats, I'd say this is looking good; please respond to the major point raised. thanks! -- 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