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=226097
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com 2010-01-26 11:30:08 EST --- MUST items: [YES] rpmplint is silent [YES] Package meets naming guidelines. Comment #1
[YES] Package meets packaging guidelines. [YES] Spec file matches base package name. [YES] License file is present, matching with spec file. [YES] Licensing Guidelines are met. Comment #2
[YES] Spec file is legible and in American English. [YES] Sources match upstream. [YES] Package builds OK. [?] BuildRequires is correct. Comment #3
[YES] ldconfig is called in %post and %postun. [YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries. [YES] Package owns all the directories it creates. [YES] Package has no duplicity in %files. [YES] Permission on files are set properly. Comment #4
[YES] %clean section is correct. [YES] Spec file has consistant macro usage. [YES] Package is code or permissable content. [YES] %doc files don't affect runtime. [YES] Header files are in -devel (-debuginfo) package. [NO] Static libraries are in -static package Comment #5
[?] -devel requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Comment #6
[YES] No versioned libraries in -devel package. [YES] No .la libtool archives. [YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own. [YES] Package has rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install. [YES] Spec file is valid UTF-8.
Should items: [NO] Package builds in mock. Comment #3
[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets. [YES] Package contains man pages.
**Comments: 1) I suggest adding %{?dist} to Release tag.
2) Licensing is mess, but at least it looks like that LGPLv2+ can be generalized to LGPL+ (no explicit version declaration in source code).
3) In order to build in mock, I had to patch spec file: -BuildRequires: glibc-kernheaders >= 2.4-9.1.88 +BuildRequires: glibc-headers >= 2.4-9.1.88
4) Better is to use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root, 0755) - for this package in both cases the resulting permissions seem to match.
5) There is libatm.a in -devel package.
6) libs-devel: Requires: linux-atm-libs = %{version} Shouldn't be: Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release} ?