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=435016 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-23 00:08:34 EDT --- Well, one ticket at a time. And once this one is done, any packager can review any of those tickets. However, there are a few issues here: The tarball in the source tree differs from the tarball downloaded from the Source0 URL. In fact, the diff is almost 37000 lines long. Any idea what's going on? I don't understand why you explicitly %define version and release. If you just use: Version: 1.09.1 Release: 7 then %version and %release are defined for you in the same way that %name is. I would argue that according to the COPYING file, the License: should be "LGPLv2 with exceptions" but spot above says LGPLv2. I'll double check with spot tomorrow. I don't think its a blocker, but the first paragraph of %description is loaded with acronyms which are completely meaningless to most people. A little elaboration there would be welcome. Any reason why parallel make is not being used? You should use it if possible, but if it breaks you should include a comment to that effect. The AUTHORS, README and COPYING files are duplicated between the packages. There's no need to do that. X source files do not match upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK (could perhaps use some elaboration of acronyms). * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libmmdb-1.09.1-7.fc10.x86_64.rpm libmmdb.so.0()(64bit) libmmdb = 1.09.1-7.fc10 libmmdb(x86-64) = 1.09.1-7.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libmmdb.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libmmdb-devel-1.09.1-7.fc10.x86_64.rpm libmmdb-devel = 1.09.1-7.fc10 libmmdb-devel(x86-64) = 1.09.1-7.fc10 = libmmdb = 1.09.1-7.fc10 libmmdb.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream (that I could see). * shared libraries present: unversioned .so links are in the -devel package ldconfig called properly * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no 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. * headersa re in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files in -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is present. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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