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: tcsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226483 ------- Additional Comments From mitr@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-26 11:02 EST ------- Thanks for the review. > (!!) MUST: Package must meet the Package Naming Guidelines > **** Review message: > %{?dist} tag is not present. Release should be: 14%{?dist} The dist tag is optional, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag . > (!!) MUST: License field in spec must match actual license. > **** Review message: > - License: distributable > According to http://directory.fsf.org/tcsh.html the license should be BSD Updated. > (!!) MUST: The package must successfully compile/build on at least 1 architecture. > **** Review message: > - Package does not compile successfully. > For me, it is due to the missing -ltermcap option when linking. > Compiles successfully without the tinfo patch. Are you perhaps building on FC-6? -ltinfo is only in rawhide ncurses, and tcsh seems to build correctly using mock. > (!!) MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. > **** Review message: > - The package does not use the %find_lang macro %find_lang works only on gettext message files, but tcsh uses catgets message files. The generated tcsh.file does mark the message files with the corresponding %lang macro. > (!!) SHOULD: Packager should query upstream for license text file. > **** Review message: > - License file is missing. A patch was sent upstream. Updated package is tcsh-6.14-15. -- 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