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: lua-expat - SAX XML parser based on the Expat library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449994 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-04 14:54 EST ------- Looks pretty good; only a few of things worth mentioning. There seems to be at least a small test suite in the tests directory; is it possible to run it at build time? There's no need for the explicit build dependency on /usr/bin/iconv; it's part of glibc so you can expect it to be there, although it doesn't hurt anything. You should use either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{buildroot} and %{optflags}; currently they're mixed. It's not a really big deal in a package this small but it is explicitly prohibited by the guidelines. * source files match upstream: 9d709ddc606630f9b9dc3f3aafcb2a7c1fcb2675000c09978d8a37974e74effd luaexpat-1.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named and is cleanly written. X specile does not use macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license ("same as lua" == MIT) * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: lxp.so.1.1.0()(64bit) lua-expat = 1.1-1.fc10 = libexpat.so.1()(64bit) lua >= 5.1 ? %check is not present, but there seem to be some tests in the source. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * 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