Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libibcommon package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450481 ed@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ed@xxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From ed@xxxxxxx 2008-06-28 12:01 EST ------- Here's a review (this time pasted into the correct bz entry!): GOOD: + source matches upstream SHA1SUM: 1a2b36d0f309690ad660c9c1ff177f76c2484104 libibcommon-1.1.0.tar.gz 1a2b36d0f309690ad660c9c1ff177f76c2484104 libibcommon-1.1.0.tar.gz.UP + license is correct and correctly included in the main package + specfile looks clean and macros sane + proper use of ldconfig + *.la files are removed + proper use of -devel and -static + has %clean + builds in mock F8 x86_64 + rpmlint reports just two ignore-able warnings: libibcommon-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libibcommon-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation + dir ownership looks good + permissions look good NEEDSWORK: - according to the review guidelines, the spec must have: rm -rf %{buildroot} or the equivalent at the start of %install section. - Is the ExclusiveArch really necessary? Could it just be deleted? I'm only asking because the review guidelines now include specific rules concerning ExcludeArch and, if the ExclusiveArch is removed, then I think the package will be fine wrt those guidelines. Maybe a comment such as "is known to work on arches ... but has not been tested on ..." would be enough? -- 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