Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226575 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |krh@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 18:57 EST ------- * "%define cvsdate xxxxxxx" -> not used, please remove * from %files: "%dir %{moduledir}" "%dir %{driverdir}" -> it's bad that all the driver packages own those directory. Suggestion: let xorg-x11-server-Xorg own them, as that package is required in any case * why not include the ChangeLog as %doc? * COPYING is there, thus: "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." BTW, it this "This is a stub file. [...]" stuff again. That seems to be present in quite some packages and it might be really nice to get that fixed upstream... * "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64 ppc alpha sparc sparc64" -- Why that? why not simply "ExcludeArch: s390" -- that way it will work if x86_128 or another new fancy arch shows up * rpmlint: rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-1.0.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek invalid-license MIT/X11 -> "MIT" rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-debuginfo-1.0.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-debuginfo invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-1.0.1-2.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 3) -> easily fixed * MISC: * I dislike that "tarball" macro, as it should not change that often and it's used only in two places. Is it really worth it? * The %description could be improved (it's identical to the summary, besides the Xorg vs X.org), but well, probably not that important * Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. build root is correct. license field matches the actual license. license is open source-compatible. source files match upstream: cbe73ae471a11101b348f37ef9c9f5e38abacade xf86-input-aiptek-1.0.1.tar.bz2 latest version is being packaged. final provides and requires are sane no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- 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