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: coq - Coq proof management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323 ------- Additional Comments From rjones@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-07 13:02 EST ------- As a general comment, I think Alan has worked hard on this package, addressing every one of the (many) comments that we have made along the way. Package review follows below. + rpmlint output coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coqtop.byte coq.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/parser.opt coq.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/coqtop.opt coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coq-tex coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/parser coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/gallina coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coqdoc coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coqwc coq.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/coq-interface.opt coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coqdep coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coq_makefile coq.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coq-interface coq-coqide.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/coq/ide/.coqide-gtk2rc coq-coqide.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/coqide.opt coq-coqide.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/coqide.byte The 'executable-stack' warnings are an instance of bug 450551. The 'unstripped-binary-or-object' warnings are because these bytecode files shouldn't be stripped. The 'hidden-file-or-dir' looks like it can be ignored in this case. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines Because Alan isn't shipping any library, we just checked against the rather more relaxed OCaml binary guidelines, and these are OK. + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora License appears to be LGPLv2 (not '+'). + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 84311faf7865b2eab964990cdb365dca 3003593 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture i386 - ExcludeArch bugs filed Alan, please file ExcludeArch bugs for the platforms where it doesn't compile (ie. ppc) + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line - %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Alan, you don't need 'make clean' in %clean. + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin Please fix the two problems noted above, before I can approve 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