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=473590 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |notting@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-01 15:43:12 EDT --- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - *** Summary should probably drop the leading 'A'. You appear to be packaging a git snapshot. (In fact, you're including the entire .git directory in the tarball, which isn't really needed.) Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to handle this, and how to version the package. - License - LGPLv2+ - OK - License field in spec matches - *** "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" I don't actually see any GPLv2+ code in the tarball. - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - *** See above re: snapshot packaging. - Package needs ExcludeArch - Possibly pointless on s390, but don't really need to exclude it - OK - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK - .la files are removed. - N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - Tested x86_64 (w/mock) - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. libiphone-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Barring building the docs with doxygen, nothing to add here. - final provides and requires are sane: Looks good. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should function as described. - No hardware, can't test - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - *** See above re: source control pulls. So, for approval: - fix %{version} and source control URL to specify what revision you're pulling - fix License: tag - maybe tweak summary If this is going to change ABI frequently without changing soname, a warning in the -devel package might be nice. Then again, if nothing other than the FUSE client is going to use the library, it may not be relevant. -- 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