Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Jason Tibbitts <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|    |
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #28 from Jason Tibbitts <>  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
   agg(x86-64) = 2.5-6.fc11

   pkgconfig(libagg) = 2.5.0
   agg-devel = 2.5-6.fc11
   agg-devel(x86-64) = 2.5-6.fc11
   agg = 2.5-6.fc11

* 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:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to