Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435543 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-10 14:28:47 EDT --- I sure hope Bob's OK. I'll take a look at this. Fist thing I notice is that the tarball in the package doesn't match the tarball at the upstream URL. It seems that the upstream tarball lacks the COPYING file and there are a couple of inconsequential changes in the documentation. Any idea what's happened there? Otherwise the packaging seems fine, but after building this (on x86_64 rawhide), I can't get it to do anything other than segfault. Does it require the config file to be set up first? X source files don't match upstream. * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: gridloc = 0.6-4.fc10 gridloc(x86-64) = 0.6-4.fc10 = libform.so.5()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) ? %check is not present. I tried to test this manually but all it seems to do is segfault. * 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. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review