Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-29 05:24 EST ------- Good: - rpmlint checks return: on dxpc-3.9.0-3.fc6.src.rpm E: dxpc unknown-key GPG#be3aac96 W: dxpc macro-in-%changelog buildroot W: dxpc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 7) first one can be ignored. second one is caused by not prefixing %{buildroot} with a % in 3.9.0-2. Third one is obvious... - no output from rpmlint for the binary rpm - package meets naming guidelines, except that release tag could have started from 0 or 1; the presence of a patch taken from a previous version does not really justify starting from 3. This is not a blocker. - package meets packaging guidelines, except for the presence of [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] - license is BSD, corresponding to the one provided in the sources as README - spec file legible, in am. english - source is last version, matches upstream, sha1sum 48acc713a8d3386d8f554fdba8b93dd8cc0e28c4 dxpc-3.9.0.tgz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates, does not own foreign files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - MUSTFIX: removing the [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] from %install and %clean - macro use consistent; "make install" from sources does not work correctly (build fails, so usage of %makeinstall is justified (unless a patch is written for Makefile.in)) - code, not content - no need for -docs; README.mingw could be ditched, it is not relevant for Fedora; TODO also does not contain anything useful - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file, no .la, static files, or .pc SHOULD - builds succesfully in mock,FC6/x86_64 - installs cleanly, runs OK MUSTFIX: - removing [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] Suggested fix: - not packaging README.mingw Since you need a sponsor, I cannot formaly approve your package, but once you find a sponsor, please point him to this review. Please follow the instructions from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors in order to get sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review