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: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate 

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-02 14:51 EST -------
ok, here's a review: 

OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
8b4bfb078f2cc9e01f37d3d251672f75  tre-0.7.4.tar.bz2
8b4bfb078f2cc9e01f37d3d251672f75  tre-0.7.4.tar.bz2.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
See below - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.


1. Not a blocker, but you might consider using a dist tag:

2. The devel package should Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

3. rpmlint has some output: (all warnings, but should be cleaned up)

W: agrep summary-ended-with-dot Approximate grep utility.
W: tre macro-in-%changelog doc
W: tre macro-in-%changelog post
W: tre mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
W: tre-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for use with the tre 
W: tre-devel no-documentation

(the last one should be ignored)

4. You mention crashes with the x86_64 version. Perhaps
the package should be ExcludeArch'ed for now until the bug is
found/fixed? I don't have a x86_64 or ppc test machine here, perhaps
someone else would like to give it a try on those arches before

Configure bugmail:
------- 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

Reply via email to