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: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-05 09:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > OK, I'll do that. However, I still have some questions: > > * Is the versioning of libSynopsis.so really necessary ? > I don't plan to provide > any kind of backward compatibility in the short term (the API and ABI still > evolve a lot) Does this mean that API/ABI may change even on 0.9.X series? Anyway I recommend to provide somajor. > * What tools other than rpmlint do you use to validate > a package ? I did use that > but couldn't see some of the issues you reported earlier. Actually the items the reviewer should check is not only rpmlint issue, mainly written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets And a reviewer may check other points which are not written on these documents (well this depends on reviewers). -- 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