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=742996 Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #2 from Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-10 14:02:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > > > libpwquality-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > oh well... upstream issue I plan to add some documentation in future. Currently the API is at least partially documented in the comments in the public header file. > > libpwquality.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwscore > > libpwquality.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwmake > upstream issue, however would be good to fix soonish Yeah, I plan to add the manpage soon. > Needs fixing: > * Doesn't build in koji > At least missing BuildRequires: pam-devel Fixed. Now I verified that it builds in mock. > * Licensing problems/uncertainty: > * License field says (BSD and GPLv2+) > * Licensing guidelines require using "or" for dual licensing > * Source files allow BSD or referenced GPL (note: not GPLv2, not GPL+!) > * COPYING contains the same reference to GPL without v2/+, but includes > text of GPLv2 Fixed to 'BSD or GPL+' which is correct according to the License guidelines. > * Source URL incorrect Fixed. > * Per "File and Directory Ownership" (gdm example), there should be > > Requires: pam > for {/etc,%_libdir}/security instead of relying on the automatic libpam > dependency. Fixed. > Not sure: > * I'm not quite happy about > > ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libpwquality.so.*.* libpwquality.so > this only works for some values of %{_libdir}. Using an absolute symlink > would be more general - OTOH this is not really a concern for Fedora I do not think we care about hypotetical or third party distributions. This is Fedora packaging and if %{_libdir} changes significantly we will have to change the spec probably anyway. > * If you plan to maintain ChangeLog, please include it in %doc There is nothing meaningful in it yet. I plan to generate more meaningful changelog from upstream hg commits. > Notes: > * Unnecessary > > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig > - the -p interpreter is added automatically Removed. > * BuildRoot: is unnecessary Removed. > * %global is preferred over %define Replaced. > * Consider using (make install ... INSTALL='install -p') to preserve timestamps Added. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tmraz/testing/libpwquality.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tmraz/testing/libpwquality-0.9-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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