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=461003 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> 2008-11-20 15:17:01 EDT --- I've no way to test this, but its been sitting for ten weeks and it builds OK so why not? Is it possible to clean up the grammar in the %description? The last sentence needs a period, I'm sure, but honestly I don't have enough context to be able to parse it and suggest improvements. I'm not sure how you arrive at "GPLv2" for the license tag; I can't find any statement of the GPL version in use, which would indicate "GPL+". Have I missed something? The package is missing the proper scriptlet dependencies for service and chkconfig: Requires(post): chkconfig Requires(preun): chkconfig, initscripts Requires(postun): initscripts * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 403fc4ce7da01c83bc2b5da8f8d11643c50dcd04e9f80a7a4f8f2deb041b22ce ssbd-0.10.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description could use some cleanup. * 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 is silent. X final provides and requires missing chkconfig and service dependencies. config(ssbd) = 0.10-1.fc10 ssbd = 0.10-1.fc10 ssbd(x86-64) = 0.10-1.fc10 = /bin/bash /bin/sh config(ssbd) = 0.10-1.fc10 libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit) * 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 X scriptlets OK (service management) but dependencies are missing. * 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