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: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-04 10:07 EST ------- Here's the full review; fixing the above issues and the buildroot should be all that's necessary. * source files match upstream: 2837046046bcdb46d77a80c1d17dbfd15e878700e879edab4cda9f080e0337f9 ncpfs-2.2.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. O dist tag is not present (not required) X build root is not correct; should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %makeinstall is not used. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: /sbin/ldconfig ipxutils libncp.so.2.3 libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4) = libncp.so.2.3 libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.MPILIB) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4) ncpfs = 2.2.6-6 (ipxutils provides only ipxutils = 2.2.6-6) * %check is present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig called as necessary. X unversioned .so files should be in -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets present are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X headers present and should be in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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