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: libvncserver - Library to make writing a vnc server easy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429749 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-26 20:55 EST ------- So everything looks good to me except for the source file permissions and that AUTHORS file. * source files match upstream: 0fbda7fc37c1f360bdbeb586e48d6203a5ef56a8cfc3b78887d7d90db683f282 LibVNCServer-0.9.1.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 has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libvncserver-0.9.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm LibVNCServer = 0.9.1-1.fc9 libvncclient.so.0()(64bit) libvncserver.so.0()(64bit) libvncserver = 0.9.1-1.fc9 = /sbin/ldconfig libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libvncclient.so.0()(64bit) libvncserver.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libvncserver-devel-0.9.1-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm LibVNCServer-devel = 0.9.1-1.fc9 libvncserver-devel = 0.9.1-1.fc9 = /bin/sh coreutils libvncclient.so.0()(64bit) libvncserver = 0.9.1-1.fc9 libvncserver.so.0()(64bit) * %check is not present. There is a test suite, but it's not something which could be run automatically at build time. * shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly. * unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X some odd file permissions * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %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. -- 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