Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu 2006-05-25 20:30 EST -------
Sorry for the delay.
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm
E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}
daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm
E: daap-sharp no-binary
E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang
/usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.configdaap-sharp-debuginfo-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm
daap-sharp-devel-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm
W: daap-sharp-devel no-documentation
All errors and warnings expected for mono packages.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- devel requires base package n-v-r
Not a must, but why not:
- include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc?
- include the samples in %doc?
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.