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=450527 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-07 15:33:37 EDT --- I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, but I have some time now. Too bad the so-called "review-o-matic" can't actually interpret that rpmlint output. The no-documentation complaints are OK, the zero-length files in the -docs package are all due to the usual suck that comes with doxygen. The upstream URL doesn't seem to take me to anywhere useful. The page isn't exactly blank, but it doesn't seem to actually refer to the software. I went to the download page and there seems to be a 4.0.0 version out there; I'll look at it if you would like to do an update. The source files indicate GPLv2+ (they have the "any later version" clause), so the license tag seems off. There's some mixed macro use in the spec; if you're not going to use %{__mkdir_p} and %{__rm}, then don't use %{__install} either. I can't tell if all of the source gets into the debuginfo package. Its compiled, but I guess its possible that some of it may only go into the static libraries from which debuginfo can't be generated. Certainly some of the source is in there. * source files match upstream: 85b28a100feb0dd77a94e4d77922fa7849078eef3438d969c0c01cfb6a01d296 KNI_3.9.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. X specfile does not use macros consistently * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate (as far as I can tell; build output is hidden). * %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: libkni-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm config(libkni) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit) libkni = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libkni(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig config(libkni) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(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) libkni-devel-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(libkni) = 3.9.2 libkni-devel = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libkni-devel(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 = libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit) libkni = 3.9.2-4.fc10 pkgconfig libkni-doc-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm libkni-doc = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libkni-doc(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 = libkni-examples-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm libkni-examples = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libkni-examples(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 = libKNIBase.so.3.9()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libkni = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) libkni-static-3.9.2-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm libkni-static = 3.9.2-4.fc10 libkni-static(x86-64) = 3.9.2-4.fc10 = libkni-devel = 3.9.2-4.fc10 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I've no idea how to test this, since I have no robotic arms handy. * shared libraries present: unversioned .so files 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 are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package, with proper dependency. * static libraries are in a separate -static package. * 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