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=442714 --- Comment #34 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-15 15:32:22 EDT --- MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is clean OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + The Source0 tag should have a valid URL pointing to the upstream release tarball. This is an important requirement. In case upstream does not provide any such tarball, the Spec should have a comment above the Source0 tag describing how the sources were obtained to create the package. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL + Could you throw some light on why it is a problem to build the language bindings on Fedora? Is it because of the ruby-rpm breakage in Rawhide? + Please do not strip the test-suite, if it is not absolutely necessary. Laziness arising out of needing to upload the SRPM several times is not a valid reason. :-) + It is not really necessary to create %{_target_platform}. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake#Specfile_Usage + To preserve timestamps you could consider using: make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} + Please add a comment in the Spec to document the rationale for shipping static libraries. + You could consider shipping the other files in the doc/ sub-directory as %doc. However shipping doc/PLANNING and doc/README in both the main package and the -devel sub-package is redundant. OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines OK - License field meets actual license OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible ?? - sources might not match upstream sources + As noted earlier, please document how the sources were obtained. Place a comment above the Source0 tag for this. xx - package does not build successfully + sat-solver-no-bindings.patch does not apply cleanly and causes a build failure in Rawhide, which uses '/usr/bin/patch -s -p0 --fuzz=0'. See: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=882707&name=build.log ?? - ExcludeArch not needed ?? - missing build dependencies + Can not verify because package fails to build. OK - no locales xx - %post and %postun should not invoke ldconfig + Since shared libraries are not being shipped, invocation of /sbin/ldconfig is not needed and should be removed. OK - package is not relocatable OK - missing dependency on package that creates directory OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently 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 - static libraries in -static package OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no shared library files OK - -devel does not require base package + Only static libraries are provided as part of the -devel or -static package. Base package consists of only executables. 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 xx - package does not build in mock successfully + As noted above, package fails to build in Rawhide. ?? - package builds on all supported architectures ?? - package functions as expected + Other components of the Zypper stack are needed to verify functionality. xx - scriptlets are not sane + As noted above, scriptlets are not needed and should be removed. OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed + -devel provides a -static package. OK - no pkgconfig files 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review