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: udpcast - UDP broadcast file distribution and installation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443449 loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx 2008-05-01 14:53 EST ------- I have some suggestions. First, the debuginfo warning is because the Makefile passes the -s option to ld, which strips the binaries. The following line in the spec file BEFORE you run the configure script will fix it: sed -i -e '/override LDFLAGS +=-s/d' Makefile.in Second, the udpcast_version macro defined at the top of the spec file is never used. You might as well delete that to reduce clutter. Third, I recommend using the %configure macro in place of the "CFLAGS=..." invocation. Finally, I recommend trimming the spec file Changelog to just your entry. All the stuff below that is available in the file named "Changelog", which is in the %doc list. MUST: - rpmlint is silent after the changes recommended above - package naming guidelines: OK - spec file name matches base name: OK - packaging guidelines: OK - licensing guidelines: OK - license field matches actual license: FAIL, the fec_license() function in fec.c claims that udpcast is covered by GPL v2 or any later version. Therefore, the license field should say "GPLv2+ and BSD". - license file in %doc: OK - spec file in American English: OK - legible spec file: OK - SRPM sources match upstream: OK - builds on one architecture: OK - appropriate use of ExcludeArch: OK - all build dependencies in BuildRequires: FAIL. The man page construction step runs a perl script and applies m4, so perl and m4 should be in BuildRequires. - handle locales properly: OK - invoke ldconfig properly: OK - relocatable package: OK - own all created directories: OK - no duplicate files in %files: OK - proper file and directory permissions: OK - %clean section: OK - consistent use of macros: OK - code or permissible content: OK - large documentation: OK - %doc files not needed to run: OK - header files in -devel: OK - static libraries in -static: OK - pkgconfig files: OK - .so files in -devel: OK - -devel requires main package: OK - no .la archives: OK - desktop files for GUI programs: OK - don't own files or directories owned by others: OK - clean build root first in %install: OK - filenames are UTF-8: OK SHOULD: - license text in separate file: OK - description and summary translations: OK - builds in mock: OK (tested only on F8 x86_64) - builds on all supported architectures: cannot test - package functions as requires: cannot test adequately - sane scriptlets: OK - subpackages require the base package: OK - placement of pkgconfig files: OK - file dependencies: OK Summary: You must fix the License and BuildRequires fields in the spec file. I encourage you to consider my other suggestions but won't block this package if you don't adopt them. -- 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