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: camlimages - OCaml image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235805 ------- Additional Comments From dev@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-03 18:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > MUST: > ===== > 0 rpmlint output is: > W: camlimages ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied > /usr/lib/ocaml/camlimages/dllci_freetype.so > W: camlimages-devel ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied > /usr/lib/ocaml/camlimages/Makefile.config Ignorable (it actually doesn't happen on a F7 box) > MUST FIX > ======== > * rename to ocaml-images or ocaml-camlimages (will fix rpmlint warning, and the > latter is consistent with PLD) I tend to disagree, but I'm going to hold off uploading an updated spec, so I can make a better judgement. > * main package must require ocaml for /usr/lib/ocaml dir ownership Done > * remove the unnecessary ldconfig %post(un) scripts, this are not normally > libs and since they are not installed in a path searched by ldconfig, calling > ldconfig is useless. Done > * The .so files should be installed under /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs Done > > > Should Fix > ========== > * Please just list all the features one after the other seperated with ',', I > don't think all rpm (gui) tools will preserve your formatting, so better to > not format at all. Done > > * Stop the obfuscated double %setup usage, instead of the 2 lines you can just > write: "%setup -q -n camlimages-2.2 -a 1" Per ocaml-SDL review, I had trouble getting to work, but done > > * Once the .so files are under %{_libdir}/ocaml/stublibs, the > files for %devel can be written as just "%{_libdir}/ocaml/camlimages/" Done > > * also please always make all your %files entries like this: > %files > %defattr(....) > %doc ... > <other files and dirs> Done -- 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