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=732218
Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> 2011-09-23 10:56:24 EDT
---
Review:
Good:
- name ok
- rpmlint ok (except spec naming below)
- BR ok
- group ok
- R ok
- parallel make is used
- check is there
- ldconfig called
- libs correctly installed
- no static libs
- no *.la
- %files ok
- sources match upstream (sha512):
20894cc43b0fb5902e30721c10cd3a1c38a1f6b5503e486a92ba8dfb9ffd9a01e25da5a64c56835da6cb47b22ee6d09f921200d58c335c619ca4841b1b6d86ab
travelccm-0.5.0.tar.bz2
MUST:
- spec has to be travelccm.spec without the version, but I'm sure, you'll
change that on importing.
See also rpmlint:
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/travelccm-0.5.0-1.fc15.src.rpm \
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/travelccm-* \
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/travelccm-doc-0.5.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
travelccm.src: E: invalid-spec-name
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
SHOULD:
- can the permissions be fixed upstream? ;)
- I still think this would be better:
%if ! (0%{?rhel} > 5)
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
So the doc package will be noarch on fedora and rhel > 5.
Please reconsider, but only SHOULD here...
- please add proper LGPLv2+ headers
Question:
- Why are you running ctest, but suggest to run "make check" in README for
checking? ;)
_____________________________________________________________________
APPROVED, when you fix spec renaming on importing
--
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.