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=447847 --- Comment #10 from Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-17 07:22:31 EDT --- source files match upstream: YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines: YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: YES dist tag is present: YES build root is correct: YES license field matches the actual license: YES license is open source-compatible: YES (BSD) License text included in package: YES latest version is being packaged: YES BuildRequires are proper: YES compiler flags are appropriate: NO - look on http://people.redhat.com/atkac/unbound-build.patch. I think that patch should be included in main source. It shows build parameters %clean is present: YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): YES debuginfo package looks complete: YES rpmlint is silent: OK (messages written below are fine) unbound.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/unbound unbound unbound.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/unbound unbound final provides and requires look sane: OK %check is present and all tests pass: OK (check is not present) no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths: NO - it seems that it is possible write "clients" for unbound. Due this reason I think the best will be create unbound-libs subpackage which will contain libunbound.so.0 and libunbound.so.0.14.0 libraries owns the directories it creates: YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: YES no duplicates in %files: YES file permissions are appropriate: VERIFY - isn't better to make configuration files and chroot non-readable by "others"? scriptlets: NO - I think you should add unbound group as well. Look on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups Please correct/explain problematic points written above. -- 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