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=469494 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-07 16:43:03 EDT --- It doesn't get much simpler than this package. Unfortunately, there's one issue: the package doesn't compile with the proper set of compiler flags. Adding sed -i -e 's/-g -Wall/%{optflags}/' Makefile after the %setup call gets things building properly, but without a test document I can't verify that it doesn't break anything. (I guess * source files match upstream: ad01be3262726d94774f519ffb920a925abe95c483d05105b596c372cc13dcf5 xlcrack-1.2.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. X 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: xlcrack = 1.2-1.fc10 xlcrack(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc10 = libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I don't have an old excel around to create a document I could use to test this. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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 * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * 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