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: libconcord - Library to talk to Logitech® Harmony® universal remote controls https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438105 ------- Additional Comments From s-t-rhbugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-22 19:18 EST ------- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: i386 (targetted at F8 using mock running on i386 F8) NOTE: See SUGGESTED ITEMS below for serious problems though. [x] Rpmlint output: [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv3+ NOTE: Upstream is fixing incorrectly marked GPLv2+ files. I believe we need to wait until this is done, then complete the review using another CVS snapshot. [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. NOTE: Upstream renaming license.txt to COPYING. I'd suggest waiting until this is done and grabbing another CVS snapshot before actually importing the SRPM into Fedora CVS. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : N/A MD5SUM upstream package: N/A NOTE: CVS snapshot. Manually checked out, and checked for correctness using "diff -urN" [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [!] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. NOTE: "Requires" for /sbin/ldconfig should be for Requires(post) and Requires(postun) only, to be consistent with existing Fedora packages. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: i386 [!] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOTE: Package does not build for ANY supported arch's for dist-f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=526551 NOTE: Package does build for ALL supported arch's for dist-f8-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=526556 There's no point approving the package until it builds for dist-f9 though. [x] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] File based requires are sane. === SUMMARY === 1. Need to wait for upstream to fix licensing text in all files to be consistent. 2. /sbin/ldconfig Requires should be tweaked to be consisted with all other Fedora packages. 3. Package doesn't build for dist-f9. Upstream should fix (I'll look into this.) -- 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