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: rpc2 - RPC2 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446652 ------- Additional Comments From rjones@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-16 10:33 EST ------- + rpmlint output rpc2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation I guess it might be a good idea to shift files such as 'README.ipv6' into -devel? + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines Very general name though. At first I thought (and hoped) it was an improved SunRPC system. I wonder if anything apart from Coda uses RPC2? + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm b28e3291d71bb36a374fb85d65125276 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture x86-64 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies However I didn't get a chance to build this in Koji, because lwp isn't in Rawhide yet, n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available - reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures + review should test the package functions as described Tested in as far as it builds Coda. + scriptlets should be sane + pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin =========== APPROVED. -- 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