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: OpenEXR_CTL - A simplified OpenEXR interface to CTL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=403741 rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-16 09:45 EST ------- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=352922 $ rpmlint *.rpm OpenEXR_CTL.x86_64: W: no-documentation OpenEXR_CTL.x86_64: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD OpenEXR_CTL.src: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD OpenEXR_CTL-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OpenEXR_CTL-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on OpenEXR_CTL OpenEXR_CTL-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD OpenEXR_CTL-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license AMPAS BSD (these are all harmless/bogus). upstream source matches: 035a68db3b1cc40fe99a7c4012d7f024 openexr_ctl-1.0.1.tar.gz Most everything looks real good. I have only a couple issues: SHOULD: (re)consider using reautoconf instead of manually hacking libtool (to remove rpath). SHOULD: (re)evaluate if BuildRequires: OpenEXR Requires: OpenEXR are really needed. To my naive eyes, I would guess no, but maybe you have reason to include these. If so, please document that in the specfile. SHOULD: work to upstream your patches (gcc43, pkgconfig). But I don't consider these blockers, 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