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: SDLmm - C++ interface for the popular SDL library Alias: SDLmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233139 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx 2007-03-20 22:23 EST ------- ==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ==== - rpmlint output clean - package named according to package naming guidelines - spec file name matches %{name} - package meets packaging guidelines - licensed with open source compatible license - license matches actual license - license included in %doc - spec written in American English - spec file legible - sources match upstream 0a05d27d1aed72af3c7a37b6378f50e5 SDLmm-0.1.8.tar.bz2 - package successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64 - all build dependencies listed in BR - no locales - proper use of ldconfig in %post/un sections - package is not relocatable - package owns all directories it creates - directories it does not create owned by filesystem - no duplicates in %files - package contains proper %clean - macro usage is consistent - contains code - no large documentation - %doc does not affect runtime - header files located in devel subpackage - no static libraries - no pkgconfig files - libraries w/o suffix in devel - devel has fully versioned requires - no libtool archives - not a GUI application - package does not own files or directories owned by other packages ==== MUST FIX ==== - Source0 URL is incorrect, the directory is sdlmm, not SDLmm ==== SHOULD FIX ==== - use of -n %{name} is redundant in the %post/un sections -- 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