https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499 --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket. Run "fedora-review -b 1090499". It evaluates the "SRPM URL:" and "Spec URL:" lines and performs many helpful checks you ought to be interested in. A brief look at the package: > URL: https://sourceware.org/netresolve/ Forbidden You don't have permission to access /netresolve/ on this server. > Source0: netresolve-0.0.1.tar.xz https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source > %package devel > Summary: Development files for getdns > Group: Development/Libraries If you set the optional Group tag for this subpackage, why is it missing in the base package? "Group: System Environment/Libraries" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > Requires: pkgconfig There are automatic pkgconfig dependencies for a long time. Query the built packages. You would only need this explicit dep for EL5. But the package does not include any .pc file, so the dependency is superfluous currently. > %post > /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun > /sbin/ldconfig If you don't to execute anything else, consider executing ldconfig directly instead of running it within a /bin/sh script: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig > %doc NEWS COPYING Why not include README and TODO? Instead, the NEWS file contents are rather useless so far. Btw, it declares this as "0.0.1", but if there is a 0.0.1 release, the RPM package ought not apply the pre-release snapshot versioning scheme, but apply the post-release versioning scheme: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([ARES], [libcares]) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config > build.log Output is non-verbose. One cannot see whether Fedora's %optflags are used, for example, and one cannot verify the compiler/preprocessor settings. Is the included "tests" directory suitable for running it at build-time in the spec %check section? > checking for ARES... yes > checking for ub_ctx_create in -llibunbound... no This check fails, but it linked with libunbound nevertheless. Suspicious. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review