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: mono-sharpcvslib - Client cvs library written in c# https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442055 alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-12 09:01 EST ------- Full review: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines: YES - Spec file matches base package name: YES - Spec has consistant macro usage: YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines.: YES - License: GPLv2+ with exception - License field in spec matches: YES - License file included in package: YES - Spec in American English: YES - Spec is legible.: YES - Sources match upstream md5sum: no, because source needed to be rezipped because of Windows separators: md5sum SharpCvsLib-0.35.3721.507-src-unix.zip SharpCvsLib-0.35.3721.507-src.zip e480d341ff54298ddae2acbedf03d00b SharpCvsLib-0.35.3721.507-src-unix.zip 968c3ee0333da891ee8f52e30e6b526e /tmp/SharpCvsLib-0.35.3721.507-src.zip - Package needs ExcludeArch: ppc and ppc64 (no nant on those platforms) - BuildRequires correct: N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang: N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. YES - Package has a correct %clean section. YES - Package has correct buildroot %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) - Package is code or permissible content.: YES - Doc subpackage needed/used. N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.: YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. Only .pc file - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun: N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig: YES - .so files in -devel subpackage. N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} YES - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file: N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch., YES, only rawhide/F-9, koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=563289 - Package has no duplicate files in %files. YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. YES - Package owns all the directories it creates. YES - No rpmlint output.: Some output, which is acceptable according to Mono packaging guidelines: rpmlint mono-sharpcvslib-* mono-sharpcvslib.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-sharpcvslib.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - final provides and requires are sane: YES Provides: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpCvsLib) = 0.35.3721.507 mono(ICSharpCode.SharpCvsLib.Tests) = 0.0.0.0 mono(ICSharpCode.SharpCvsLib.Tests-sample) = 0.0.0.0 mono(cvs) = 0.35.3721.507 mono-sharpcvslib = 0.35-1.fc9 Requires: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpCvsLib) = 0.35.3721.507 mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 2.84.0.0 mono(System) = 2.0.0.0 mono(System.Configuration) = 2.0.0.0 mono(System.EnterpriseServices) = 2.0.0.0 mono(System.Xml) = 2.0.0.0 mono(log4net) = 1.2.10.0 mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 mono(nunit.framework) = 2.2.0.0 SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. YES - Should build on all supported archs: YES only i386 and x86_64 currently (see koji build above) - Should function as described. NOT TESTED - Should have sane scriptlets. YES - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. YES - Should have dist tag: YES - Should package latest version: It looks like 0.35 is the latest stable version but it's from 2005, there is a "dev" version from 2005. Does it fix any outstanding issues with 0.35? Issues: 1. Add ppc to ExcludeArch 2. See if BR's can be adjusted to build on F-8 3. nant currently provides mono(cvs) which it shouldn't, I assume that this package will replace that requirement? Only 1) is a blocker, 2) would be nice, but not critical for approval, since this is necessary to get the nant/mono stack in a sane condition. -- 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