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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-09 01:29 EST ------- Sorry for the delay in reviewing this... OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 3ee58cbf5486c97ef3bc0c4368a344cc redland-1.0.4.tar.gz 3ee58cbf5486c97ef3bc0c4368a344cc redland-1.0.4.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version Issues: 1. You have the License as: "LGPL or Apache License 2.0", but it apparently also is optionally licensed under the GPL, so you should add that option. 2. -devel package has a .pc file, so shouldn't it Requires: pkgconfig 3. rpmlint our little friend says: W: redland invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 W: redland invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 W: redland-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 W: redland-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 Can be ignored I think. 4. You aren't packaging the newest version, but thats due to the version of rasqal available. Is there a bug filed for updating that? 5. The package dumps 18 files into /usr/include/ Perhaps it could be changed to put them in a /usr/include/redland/ instead? (And then the .pc file would need to be adjusted to include the right -I/usr/include/redland. -- 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