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: lineakd - linux easy-access-key daemon


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191604


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-20 00:19 EST -------
Issues:

The source file in your SRPM is mode 664; it should be 644.  Probably doesn't
matter when you check in, but you might want to fix it anyway.

Your Source: URL just gives HTML.  You should use dl.sf.net instead of
prdownloads.sf.net.

Needs these just to build:
BuildRequires:  libXext-devel
BuildRequires:  libXt-devel

Once built, rpmlint complains:
E: lineakd postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/liblineak.so.0.8.0
E: lineakd postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/liblineak.so.0.8.0
E: lineakd non-empty-%post /sbin/ldconfig
W: lineakd one-line-command-in-%post
################################################################################
E: lineakd non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
W: lineakd one-line-command-in-%postun
################################################################################
W: lineakd-devel no-documentation

Most of this goes away if you remove your separator comments.  I don't know if
rpmlint has a valid complaint here or not but I admit that I've not seen that
style of commenting in a specfile before.  What remains is the lack of
documentation in lineak-devel, which I believe is a bogus warning.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible; license text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   8f0b4c38c3a46bfd2613e371e8fd2440  lineakd-0.8.4.tar.gz
   8f0b4c38c3a46bfd2613e371e8fd2440  lineakd-0.8.4.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper (missing two; see above)
O package builds in mock (development, x86_64) after fixing BuildRequires:
X rpmlint has some complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is run as necessary.  Unversioned .so
files are in the -devel package.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
X scriptlets present and sane, but the comments seem to cause problems.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers present and in a -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to