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=474843 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-10 16:52:21 EDT --- Note that you are guaranteed that %{fedora} >= 9 at this point, since you cannot branch for F-8. No harm in keeping the conditional if you really want it, though. I'm a bit confused about the versioning. One one hand, you could say that the version is simply 20070930 and use that as Version:; on the other hand, you could say that upstream has never released any version and so this is a prerelease. In the latter case, we don't use Release: 1 or greater for prereleases, so you would have: Version: 0 Release: 0.2.20070930%{?dist} according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages That's really the only issue I see. * source files match upstream. 242eb0943c5574a6a1ac7d1e40354d3e2be74e838e82241c0f6b5d1d06f913fe pdfbook.c 266a40b44aec5f182328054dd2ed301fb4c7d60414423a9bb4e2c27c7cffe1d4 README X package does not meet 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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * 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: pdfbook = 0-2.20070930.fc11 pdfbook(x86-64) = 0-2.20070930.fc11 = poppler-utils texlive-texmf-latex * 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