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=221717 Jason Tibbitts <ti...@math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |ti...@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #28 from Jason Tibbitts <ti...@math.uh.edu> 2009-01-15 23:07:08 EDT --- Any update? It would really nice to get rid of this ancient review ticket. Actually, I think I'll just go ahead and do a full review. I was about to complain about a missing pkgconfig dependency for the -devel package, but then noted that rpm automatically generates a /usr/bin/pkg-config dependency. That seems to solve the issue, although I'm not quite sure where the dependency comes from. So really it's just the rpmlint complaints above that could use fixing. * source files match upstream (verified manually). * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has some valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: agg-2.5-6.fc11.x86_64.rpm libagg.so.2()(64bit) libaggfontfreetype.so.2()(64bit) libaggplatformX11.so.2()(64bit) libaggplatformsdl.so.2()(64bit) agg = 2.5-6.fc11 agg(x86-64) = 2.5-6.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libagg.so.2()(64bit) libaggfontfreetype.so.2()(64bit) libaggplatformX11.so.2()(64bit) libaggplatformsdl.so.2()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) agg-devel-2.5-6.fc11.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(libagg) = 2.5.0 agg-devel = 2.5-6.fc11 agg-devel(x86-64) = 2.5-6.fc11 = /usr/bin/pkg-config agg = 2.5-6.fc11 automake freetype-devel libagg.so.2()(64bit) libaggfontfreetype.so.2()(64bit) libaggplatformX11.so.2()(64bit) libaggplatformsdl.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig(freetype2) * shared libraries present. ldconfig called properly unversioned .so links are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files present; pkgconfig dependency is there (via /usr/bin/pkg-config auto-dep). * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedoraemail@example.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review