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=466655 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-17 17:14:43 EDT --- Indeed, this builds fine. I get one rpmlint complaint: libfplll-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation which is indeed correct but also not an issue. Normally I'd complain about obscure acronyms which aren't explained in the package description, but I'm not sure that "Lenstra-Lenstra-Lovascz" is any clearer than "LLL". I will point out that the use of "oblivious" in the description doesn't really make any sense because a "succession of variants" can't have conscious awareness in the first place. I'm not sure what they really mean. Maybe "immaterial". But that's just nitpicking. There's a test suite; you should call it (with "make check" in a %check section). I'm not sure how to interpret the results but a quick read of the code indicates that calls to llldiff should produce no output if there are no problems, and that seems to be the case in my tests. The "generate" command is incredibly generic; I don't think this package can be approved with a binary of that name. fplll-generate would make sense. The header files install directory into /usr/include with very generic names (/usr/include/defs.h, for example). These will need to be either renamed or moved into a subdirectory. * source files match upstream: 04f630a4d939f4fc1c721c57c921a2e940efb8b315adca6f994192220326aeb7 libfplll-3.0.9.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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libfplll-3.0.9-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libfplll.so.0()(64bit) libfplll = 3.0.9-1.fc10 libfplll(x86-64) = 3.0.9-1.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig libfplll.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.3()(64bit) libmpfr.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) libfplll-devel-3.0.9-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libfplll-devel = 3.0.9-1.fc10 libfplll-devel(x86-64) = 3.0.9-1.fc10 = libfplll = 3.0.9-1.fc10 libfplll.so.0()(64bit) X %check is not present, but should be. * shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly. * unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X generically named files. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig). * 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 in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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