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-proto-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641 notting@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |notting@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From notting@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-27 23:47 EST ------- MUST Items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines *** Package is an agglomeration of 29 source tarballs. I'm not going to tell you to split it; so it's OK with me, even if the name doesn't match a particular upstream tarball. - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - MIT/X11 (albeit with many copyright holders ) - License field in spec matches - *** Should be changed to 'MIT/X11' (to match other X packages) or 'MIT' (to pacify rpmlint). - License file included in package *** Please include the various module copying. Yes, this is a mess. I suggest in the build loop adding a: mv COPYING COPYING-${dir%%-*} and adding a %doc */COPYING* directive. - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK (that was fun) - BuildRequires correct - OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - *** Should require pkgconfig. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - *** A Requires on pkgconfig should handle %{_libdir}/pkgconfig - No rpmlint output. - *** Source rpmlint: W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License See above. W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel These aren't coming back, so it's OK with me. However, it's safer to add a version for the last version of each. W: xorg-x11-proto-devel mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 89, tab: line 73) Feel free to fix if you want. Binary rpmlint: W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License See above. E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel Since this was a package split, this package alone does not provide the functionality of xorg-x11-devel, etc. (no libX11, libXext, etc.) So this should be OK. E: xorg-x11-proto-devel no-binary Not a bug. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - didn't check - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) *** Bug 229336 should be handled. Adding a simple: %doc randrproto-*/randrproto.txt damageproto-*/damageproto.txt along with a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc" in %install should handle it. -- 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