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=767622 --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2011-12-15 08:49:37 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK* source files match upstream: compared with my own checkout OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. BAD specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. BAD license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPL/LGPL). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. OK* final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, scriptlet present OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK GUI apps with desktop files - the source archive is not compressed although it has .gz suffix, you can use fedora-getsvn tool for grabbing the sources - instead of using "cp" for installing files you should use either "cp -p" or (better) "install -p -m 644", so the timestamp is kept for the files - licenses as written in README and source files would be GPL+ and LGPL+ because no version is specified, included license texts are irrelevant here (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ), clarification with upstream is required, ODBCTestQ4 seems to be GPLv2+, unixODBC library itself is LGPLv2+ - passing --disable-static to configure should let only the shared libs build, removing the need to "rm" them - shouldn't a devel subpackage exist? if not then the *.so links shouldn't be packaged at all - rpmlint complains a bit: unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging unixODBC-gui-qt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging unixODBC-gui-qt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging unixODBC-gui-qt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging => please fix unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgtrtstQ4.so unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libodbcinstQ4.so => see point above unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ODBCTestQ4 unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ODBCCreateDataSourceQ4 unixODBC-gui-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ODBCManageDataSourcesQ4 => would be nice, but not a blocker unixODBC-gui-qt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: unixODBC-gui-qt-20111208svn95.tar.gz => OK, snapshot is used unixODBC-gui-qt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/unixODBC-gui-qt/ODBCTestQ4/* => should be reported/fixed upstream -- 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