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: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254060 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2008-04-15 00:02 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 19f881141e18a4f4402af16738ee5ae7 epplets-0.10.tar.gz 19f881141e18a4f4402af16738ee5ae7 epplets-0.10.tar.gz.orig See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} See below - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. As with e16, could you ping upstream to try and change sometime to a nicer license? Not a blocker, but would be nice to do. 2. I see in the build.log: configure: WARNING: *** GL epplets will not be built *** Missing buildrequires? 3. Any reason to ship the .la and .a files? .la files should be removed and unless there is some good reason, static libs shouldn't be shipped. 4. rpmlint says: e16-epplets.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising e16-epplets.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising e16-epplets-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising e16-epplets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation e16-epplets-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising Can be ignored. 5. Not a blocker, but Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig shouldn't be needed. rpm is smart enough to add this requires because you are using -p -- 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