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: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445980 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-12 01:12 EST ------- Builds fine; rpmlint says only: odpdom-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-odpdom.x86_64: W: no-documentation which are OK. If you're going to use the macro forms of commands line %{__make}, you should use %{__rm} as well. Also, if you prefer %{buildroot} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you should use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Just try to be consistent in your usage of macro forms. I note you're not using the dist tag. I guess you maintain enough packages that you can handle the version juggling required when you don't use the dist tag. * source files match upstream: 10aba36b25a1b0e6dcfba10b5211b28b2bbd339365fb9ddc48496d357ecf7036 odpdom-0.2.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named and is cleanly written. X specfile does not use macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * 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. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: odpdom-0.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm libODP.so.0()(64bit) odpdom = 0.2.1-1 = /sbin/ldconfig libODP.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) odpdom-devel-0.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm odpdom-devel = 0.2.1-1 = libODP.so.0()(64bit) odpdom = 0.2.1-1 python-odpdom-0.2.1-1.x86_64.rpm _cODP.so()(64bit) python-odpdom = 0.2.1-1 = libODP.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpython2.5.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries installed; ldconfig is called properly. Unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * 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