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: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450054 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-26 00:50 EST ------- One thing to note is that you should include info about checking out the actual version that you're packaging. Since upstream doesn't even bother to tag anything, you should probably use -D and pass the checkout date. You might as well remove the commented-out bits of the spec like the empty BuildRequires: and Requires: and the scriptlets. These are minor, though. * source files match upstream (verified by manual comparison). * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: liblinebreak-static = 0.9.6-2.fc10 liblinebreak-devel = 0.9.6-2.fc10 = (no non-glibc dependencies) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Can't test this without building something which uses it. * 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. * headers OK in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries present: no dynamic libs present, so OK in the -devel package. -static provide is present. * no libtool .la files. 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