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=459088 --- Comment #9 from Rick L Vinyard Jr <rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-05 13:15:19 EDT --- I'm not a sponsor, but perhaps this review will help speed things up: ===== MUST Items ===== UNKNOWN - rpmlint results protobuf-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site- packages/google/protobuf/descriptor_pb2.py 0644 protobuf-static.i386: W: no-documentation protobuf-vim.i386: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint gives an error for 0644 permissions, but other python packages use the same permissions. False positive in rpmlint? PASSED - package is named according to package guidelines PASSED - spec file name matches the base package PASSED - package meets guidelines PASSED - ASL 2.0 license is acceptable PASSED - spec license field matches actual license PASSED - license in package included in %doc PASSED - spec is written in American English PASSED - spec file is legible PASSED - sources match upstream sources Upstream md5sum: add533032c5abffa378306fb580a18a4 protobuf-2.0.1.tar.bz2 srpm md5sum: add533032c5abffa378306fb580a18a4 protobuf-2.0.1.tar.bz2 PASSED - package successfully builds on i386 and x86_64 PASSED - all dependencies listed in BuildRequires PASSED - no BuildRequires duplicates PASSED - no BuildRequires listed exceptions PASSED - specfile does not have locales PASSED - ldconfig correctly called for all shared lib packages PASSED - relocatable PASSED - owns all directories it creates PASSED - doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages PASSED - no duplicate files PASSED - permissions set properly PASSED - each %files section has a proper %defattr PASSED - %clean present and proper PASSED - macro usage consistent PASSED - package contains code, not content PASSED - Documentation not large... no need for separate %doc PASSED - %doc section does not effect runtime PASSED - devel files are in a separate -devel subpackage PASSED - static libraries present, but in separate -static subpackage given the nature of this library, presence of statics are beneficial FAILED - The -devel also needs a Requires: pkgconfig PASSED - -devel requires the base using a fully versioned dependency FAILED - libtool archives are included in -devel Add this line after make in %install to fix and remove .la from -devel find %{buildroot} -type f -name "*.la" -exec rm -f {} ';' PASSED - no GUI applications, no need for desktop files PASSED - package doesn't own directories owned by other packages PASSED - all filenames are UTF-8 ===== SHOULD Items ===== GOOD - Package builds in mock; Fedora 9 i386 and x86_64 GOOD - Package functionality tested: main library functions properly with app built against libprotobuf -compiler functions properly -devel functions properly including pkgconfig -vim functions properly UNKNOWN - shouldn't -python depend on the base package for libprotobuf? GOOD - package uses disttag ===== OTHER Items ===== I'd prefer to see the make line look like this to preserve permissions: %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} STRIPBINARIES=no -- 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