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=225253 Jon Ciesla <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Status Whiteboard|NotReady | Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla <[email protected]> 2012-04-03 12:38:21 EDT --- Fresh review. Good: - rpmlint checks return: apr-devel.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/apr-1-config lines ['46'] This build configuration file contains rpaths which will be introduced into dependent packages. Fix. apr-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apr-1-config Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Fix if possible. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ASL 2.0 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files There is one .la file, in -devel, %{_libdir}/libapr-1.la. This needs to go either in -static, or -devel needs Provides: apr-static = %{version}-%{release} - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Let me know if you want me to make any of these fixes. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
