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: libyahoo2 - Library for the Yahoo! Messenger Protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433925 lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx 2008-05-14 05:43 EST ------- Last minute fix - please add missing BuildRequiires: gtk2-devel REVIEW MUST Items: + rpmlint is silent. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. [petro@localhost SOURCES]$ md5sum libyahoo2-0.7.6.tar.bz2* 9cb9a037506196bc370ba8d48698c4d8 libyahoo2-0.7.6.tar.bz2 3679c2e6a03a57c6f06414ca82b386eb libyahoo2-0.7.6.tar.bz2.from_srpm Please, use only upstreamed source from SF. + The package is successfully compiled and built into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. + All build dependencies (except of gtk2-devel, see above) are listed in BuildRequires. + Package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + A package owns all directories that it creates. Personally, I'd like to explicitly add as %dir in files-section for devel-package this line: dir %{_includedir}/%{name} and change this one %{_includedir}/%{name}/* to that %{_includedir}/* but this only my personal favour, not a blocker. + A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are be set properly. + A package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + A package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Everything, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + This packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files and it 'Requires: pkgconfig' + A package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), and library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + Package is NOT contains any .la libtool archives. + Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: + The pkgconfig(.pc) file is placed in a -devel pkg. OK, please add missing BuildRequire, use exact tarball from SF.net, and this package is ============ = APPROVED = ============ Don't forget to raise fedora-cvs flag to '?' then you'll be ready. -- 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