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: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-26 01:28 EST ------- OK, this package is pretty much OK but I just want to run the static library by FESCo so that these merge reviews get the same treatment that any other package would get. Some other comments: Source: should be a URL, probably http://dl.sf.net/flex/flex-%{version}.tar.bz2 This package has a build-time dependency on "info" but I don't see why a text-mode info browser would be useful for the build process. I'll get back as soon as FESCo has a chance to discuss the static library issue. * source files match upstream: 53b56a62ea9409b99b7a0ac4a5204fac16ca7eaf39b9374164c346d6badc6914 flex-2.5.33.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. ? Not sure what BuildRequires: info is for. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. O rpmlint warnings are OK (static library OK pending FESCo ack). * final provides and requires are sane: flex = 2.5.33-7.fc7 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info m4 * %check is present and all tests pass: Tests succeeded: 40 Tests FAILED: 0 * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (install-info) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present, in base package because this package is only useful for development. * no pkgconfig files. ? static libraries present; FESCo ack pending. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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