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: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |fedora-review?, needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-09 14:53 EST ------- Good: + Local build works fine on x86_64 + Rpmlint on source package is quite + Consistent macro usage + package use a OSS license + Tar archive in the package matches with upstream (md5sum: 52bc1b0309812eead630f8dfe795c923) + Rpmlint is quite on sat-solver package + File permissions seems ok. + Package seems not to have files own by other packages. + Local install and uninstall works fine. + Package build fine in mock (xu6_64, ppc64 and ppc, devel) Bad: - %{_includedir]/satsolver should be own by the package - Package should not contains static libraries - Package doesn't contains license text, but upstream package contains a verbatin copy of the license. - Rpmlint complaints on devel package: $ rpmlint sat-solver-devel-0.9.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm sat-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - Package seems not to use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS Questions: ? Why you remove the testsuite. From my point of view this may be helpful to ensure the QA of the package -- 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