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: libggz - Library for client-server games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370741 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-07 22:45 EST ------- Hmm, rpmlint for me says: libggz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.14-2 0.0.14-1.fc8 Seems like the release is still -1 but the changelog has -2. Not a huge deal; you can fix it up when you check in. Given the current NSS porting effort, I wonder if it could be used here. I haven't much clue about that, though. * source files match upstream: d66834894dbc6b55c1da18b10fe8f9a6248bb5d3410b9dc1af955c6befdd0a43 libggz-0.0.14.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * 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. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint complains about the changelog. * final provides and requires are sane: libggz-0.0.14-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm libggz.so.2()(64bit) libggz = 0.0.14-1.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2)(64bit) libggz.so.2()(64bit) libgnutls.so.13()(64bit) libgnutls.so.13(GNUTLS_1_3)(64bit) libggz-devel-0.0.14-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm libggz-devel = 0.0.14-1.fc8 = libggz = 0.0.14-1.fc8 libggz.so.2()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Obviously this can't really be tested without some client apps. * shared libraries present; ldconfig called properly. * unversioned .so files are in the -devel pacakge. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. (Well, the changelog is twice as large as the library itself, but it's still under 300K.) * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review