Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 ------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx 2008-06-21 16:16 EST ------- MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is clean OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + Is it necessary to define multilib_arches? + Since the package no longer carries the library, it should not be mentioned in the description. + Source0 does not conform to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec seem to have a non-functional URL. Upstream should be informed about it. + The --enable-docs and --enable-lockdev options could not be found in configure and configure.ac and look like remnants from libgphoto2. + Is --with-doc-dir really needed? Shouldn't it by %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} instead of %{_docdir}/%{name}? + To preserve timestamps you could consider using: make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Why not include ChangeLog and TODO in %doc? + Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc? OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines xx - License field meets actual license + Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec wrongly mention LGPL. Upstream should be informed about it. OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch for s390 and s390x + s390 and s390x are not Fedora supported architectures, yet. Out of curiosity, what is the reason for this? xx - redundant and extra build dependencies listed + libusb-devel and libexif-devel are brought in by libgphoto2-devel, lockdev-devel looks like an old requirement from libgphoto2, while pkgconfig is brought in by all the -devel packages providing *.pc files. xx - locales not handled properly + BuildRequires: gettext should be added. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files OK - no shared libraries OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) OK - %clean present xx - macros not used consistently + Both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT notations used. + No need to enclose them within double quotes. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros only one style should be used. OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - no header files OK - no static libraries OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no library files OK - -devel is not needed OK - no libtool archives OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures + s390 and s390x are excluded, which are not Fedora architectures. OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are sane OK - subpackages are not needed OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no file dependencies -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review