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=457288 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-16 14:48:38 EDT --- Builds fine; rpmlint says: snobol.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/snobol4/snotypes.h and the same for several other headers. The point of this package is to produce C code so this makes sense, although I then wonder if it shouldn't have a dependency on gcc. snobol.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Is there anything arch-specific in /usr/lib? Would /usr/share be a better place for those files? There's also a README file in /usr/lib/ which is a duplicate of what's in the docdir. I note that the compiler is called like "gcc -O3 -O2 -g -pipe..." which looks a bit odd, although I've confirmed that at least current gcc will ignore the -O3 in this case, but you might consider patching out the -O3 entirely. Can you comment on why the debuginfo generation is broken. I know it is turned off because the package would be empty, but it would be better to know why it is empty as that may be a bug that needs fixing. * source files match upstream: 53503e412953ddf31149cd36aa3cd7ce164c2a149e33309fe7c583be54c791ae snobol4-1.1.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. o compiler flags are appropriate (well, there's an extra -O3 which is currently ignored). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. ? debuginfo package is disabled for unknown reasons. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. ? final provides and requires are sane: snobol = 4.1.1-1.fc10 snobol(x86-64) = 4.1.1-1.fc10 = libgdbm.so.2()(64bit) Would a gcc dependency be in order? * %check is not present, but there are some tests run as part of the build process which seem to succeed (see timing.out). * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X README file is duplicated. * 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 are present in the main package because this is a compiler. * 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