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=464049 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-05 23:42:53 EDT --- Ok, this package is next. Here are my notes: * rpmlint on the SRPMS or SPEC gives: libprojectM-qt.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10) which can be fixed easily. * There is no file containing the license text. Please inform the upstream. The license as of it is should be GPLv2+, which is correct. * Source0 must be corrected * The package does not (directly or indirectly) depend on another package that owns on /usr/share/pixmaps (please verify this). Thus it must own /usr/share/pixmaps * The empty doc line %doc can be taken off, if there's no reply to the license query from upstream. * I find the description (*) for the devel package insufficient. What it says is true for any devel packages. I would copy the contents of the description from the main package and paste it to the beginning of the devel's description, and after that add the (*) to the end. * You must BR: cmake I recommend you using "mock" to figure out BR's. * No headers in devel? (just checking) * The pc file needs patched as you did for the libprojectM package (to fix the /usr/lib(64) issue) -- 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