https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket. Run "fedora-review -b 1090499". It evaluates the "SRPM URL:" and "Spec URL:" lines and performs many helpful checks you ought to be interested in.
A brief look at the package:
Forbidden You don't have permission to access /netresolve/ on this server.
Source0: netresolve-0.0.1.tar.xz
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source
%package devel Summary: Development files for getdns Group: Development/Libraries
If you set the optional Group tag for this subpackage, why is it missing in the base package? "Group: System Environment/Libraries" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Requires: pkgconfig
There are automatic pkgconfig dependencies for a long time. Query the built packages. You would only need this explicit dep for EL5. But the package does not include any .pc file, so the dependency is superfluous currently.
%post /sbin/ldconfig
%postun /sbin/ldconfig
If you don't to execute anything else, consider executing ldconfig directly instead of running it within a /bin/sh script:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
%doc NEWS COPYING
Why not include README and TODO?
Instead, the NEWS file contents are rather useless so far.
Btw, it declares this as "0.0.1", but if there is a 0.0.1 release, the RPM package ought not apply the pre-release snapshot versioning scheme, but apply the post-release versioning scheme: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([ARES], [libcares])
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_p...
build.log
Output is non-verbose. One cannot see whether Fedora's %optflags are used, for example, and one cannot verify the compiler/preprocessor settings.
Is the included "tests" directory suitable for running it at build-time in the spec %check section?
checking for ARES... yes checking for ub_ctx_create in -llibunbound... no
This check fails, but it linked with libunbound nevertheless. Suspicious.