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=458024 --- Comment #10 from Matt Domsch <matt_domsch@xxxxxxxx> 2008-08-27 10:30:08 EDT --- Pretty close: formal review below, noting a few minor changes to make. Do these then do the CVS requests. rpmlint: 100% clean, ok naming: ok spec file name matches: ok packaging guidelines: ok license = EPL: ok license tag: ok - COPYING file not included in %doc for main package, only in -devel. Must fix. spec in english: ok spec legible: ok - Source0 URL incorrect, use http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 complies on i386 and x86_64: ok all BRs correct: ok spec doesn't use locales: ok properly uses ldconfig in scriptlets: ok not relocatable: ok dir ownership: ok no duplicate files: ok file perms correct: ok %clean section: ok consistent use of macros: ok code, not content: ok no large docs, no need for -doc subpackage: ok %doc usage ok (except see above) headers in -devel: ok no static libs: ok no pkgconfig files: ok .so in -devel: ok - -devel needs to include fully versioned dependency. Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} all libtool .la files removed: ok no GUI, no .desktop files: ok dir ownership correct: ok %install does rm: ok filenames UTF8: ok shoulds: source includes license: ok not translated .spec: ok builds in mock: ok builds on i386 and x86_64: ok package installs fine, is a library. will be tested when dependent apps use it (also under review). scriptlets sane: ok no other subpackages: ok no pkgconfig: ok no extra deps: ok -- 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