https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: BAD source files match upstream: cc9e91f6e1bec987616066902fbf532937b120e5 qextserialport-1.2beta2.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). 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. OK rpmlint is silent. BAD 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. 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 headers in devel subpackage OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - please use the whole URL for the source archive - http://qextserialport.googlecode.com/files/qextserialport-1.2beta2.tar.gz works here, otherwise a comment is needed - the devel subpackage should depend on qt4-devel, because %{_qt4_datadir}/mkspecs/features/ would be unwned otherwise, also it's unusable without qt4-devel - I prefer trailing slash when whole directory should be included => %{_includedir}/QtExtSerialPort/ -- 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