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=497622
--- Comment #4 from Tim Fenn <fenn(a)stanford.edu> 2009-05-04 03:24:44 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
rpmlint output:
apbs.src:53: W: setup-not-quiet
apbs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
- Use "%setup -q" to fix the first warning.
done.
- Your patches are incorrectly named, add a abps- prefix to them.
Send the
patches upstream.
done and done.
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSFIX
- You are mixing $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, which is not allowed.
- Please add comments about why the patches are necessary.
- You can shorten the install section with the hints given above.
- Use the same description as in the review request. The one you have now in
the SPEC is a bit too long and contains unnecessary information (the last two
paragraphs).
done.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
- Stuff under contrib/ seems to be licensed under LGPLv2+, but nothing seems to
be packaged from there.
the libraries that are built in contrib/ are lumped into libapbs.so* (along
with some of the BSD licensed functions) - I've made note of the dual license,
is it sufficient/OK to annotate the .so files as "BSD and LGPLv2+" in the
%files section and add a PACKAGE-LICENSING file?
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
- Drop INSTALL and NEWS from %doc, include README.
done.
Updated files:
Spec URL:
http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/apbs.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/apbs-1.1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
--
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.