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=454482 Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-09 18:29:55 EDT --- [OK] rpmlint output:silent [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [OK] license allowed: GPLv2+ [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: [OK] package is code or permissive content: code {N/A} patches sent to upstream and commented [OK] Source0 is a working URL {N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz <N/A> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: dbda80ef580e1a0975ef50b9aaa5210e vbindiff-3.0_beta4.tar.gz [OK] Package builds on all platforms: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=989950 [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [N/A] %find_lang used for locales [N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig [N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included [N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] Follows desktop entry spec [N/A] Valid .desktop Name [N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName [N/A] Valid .desktop Categories [N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) [OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] Consistent macro usage [N/A] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) {OK} PreReq not used {OK} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {OK} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {OK} no rpath {NEEDSWORK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps Consider using this to keep the timestamp of the manpage: %configure INSTALL="install -p" But imho this should be done directly in %configure, I have sent a mail about this to fedora-packaging. {OK} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <N/A> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {GOOD ENOUGH} Follows Naming Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages According to the changelog/Review ticket, this is the second prelease package with the same version. Therefore the release should be '0.2.beta4' and not '0.1.beta4'. The digit needs to be always increased to avoid possible problems with rpms version-release compare algorithm. This package is APPROVED. Please consider the extra argument to %configure before you import this package into cvs and do not forget to increase the release properly. -- 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