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: libmirage - library to provide access to different image formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453569 ------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx 2008-07-11 16:23 EST ------- MUST Items: xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM + [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ rpmlint libmirage-1.0.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm libmirage.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libmirage-1.0.0/ChangeLog libmirage.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libmirage-1.0.0/NEWS [rishi@ginger x86_64]$ OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + http://cdemu.sourceforge.net/pkg_libmirage.php looks to be a more appropriate choice for URL. + Did you try to get the patch accepted upstream? It might affect SPARC too. + The versioned dependencies on pkgconfig, flex and glib2-devel are not needed. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires: "if the lowest possible requirement is so old that nobody has a version older than that installed on any target distribution release, there's no need to include the version in the dependency at all. ... As a rule of thumb, if the version is not required, don't add it just for fun." + No need to delete %{_libdir}/libmirage/*.a in %install since --disable-static was passed to %configure. + Remove the empty ChangeLog and NEWS from %doc. OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines xx - License field meets actual license + Should be GPLv2+ instead of LGPLv2+. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible xx - sources match upstream sources + The gzipped tarball is no longer available at the given Source location. You could use the bzipped tarball instead. However it looks like the bzipped tarball has problems with parallel builds. OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed xx - missing build dependencies + In order to build the documentation 'BuildRequires: gtk-doc' is needed. OK - no locales OK - %post and %postun invoke ldconfig OK - package is not relocatable xx - missing dependency on package that creates directory + The -devel subpackage should have 'Requires: gtk-doc' since it puts files in a sub-directory within /usr/share/gtk-doc. OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently + While %{name} is used in Source, libmirage is used in the rest of the cases. You can consider using %{name} throughout the Spec file. OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - header files in -devel OK - no static libraries OK - -devel has *.pc file and requires pkgconfig OK - library files without suffix in -devel OK - -devel requires base package 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 OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are sane OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed OK - pkgconfig files in -devel OK - no file dependencies -- 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