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: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262 belegdol@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From belegdol@xxxxxxxxx 2007-05-30 06:36 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint is not silent on the devel package. Complains about no documentation, but this can be ignored. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package name - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must matches the actual license - MIT - MUST: License is included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file is written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. - MUST: Package builds and compiles on fc6/i386 - MUST: Did not find compile failures - MUST: Buildrequires are fine - MUST: Locale does not apply - MUST: ldconfig is used properly - MUST: Non-relocatable - MUST: No dirs created - MUST: No duplicates in %files - MUST: Correct permissions - MUST: %clean section present - MUST: Consistent use of macros - MUST: Package contains code - MUST: No large documentation - MUST: No %doc runtime dependency - MUST: Header files are in a -devel package. - MUST: No static libs - MUST: pkgconfig requires correct - MUST: .so file in -devel - MUST: Correct NVR requires for devel - MUST: No libtool archives - MUST: Not a GUI app - MUST: No overlapping ownership - MUST: Correct buildroot cleanup - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: License is present as a separate file - SHOULD: Package builds in mock (fc6/i386) - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane - SHOULD: NVR dependencies correct - SHOULD: pkgconfig files are in -devel Things to correct: - please change package release to 0.1.%{gitdate}git%{?dist}, as per [1] - please read [2] to check how to state the source url precisely - a minot thing: please align -devel requires with the lines above them Other than that, the package looks fine to me. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-cfd71146dbb6f00cec9fe3623ea619f843394837 [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL?highlight=%28sourceurl%29#head-615f6271efb394ab340a93a6cf030f2d08cf0d49 -- 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