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=483434
--- Comment #3 from Christian Krause chkr@plauener.de 2009-02-19 14:59:03 EDT --- Thanks for the new packages. Here is a more detailed review:
Most issues are resolved besides some minor documentation issue and the static library.
GOOD: * Rpmlint rpmlint SRPMS/argtable2-10-2.fc10.src.rpm RPMS/i386/argtable2-10-2.fc10.i386.rpm RPMS/i386/argtable2-debuginfo-10-2.fc10.i386.rpm RPMS/i386/argtable2-devel-10-2.fc10.i386.rpm SPECS/argtable2.spec 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * Package name, spec file name and upstream package name match * Download via spectool -r works * Packaged tarball matches upstream (md5sum: 2ea4cd1b55ee250baa37a42b255ae426) * License tag GPLv2+ matches the source (Although I've checked only a couple of files) * License GPLv2+ is acceptable for Fedora * License file packaged in %doc * Mock build successfully (F10) * Koji scratch build successful for all archs on F10 and F11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1140640 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1140678 * No build dependencies besides base system * No locales included, so no locale handling needed * Package contains libraries, ldconfig is called in %post and %postun * %defattr used for all packages * %clean section exists * *.la files deleted * Macros correctly used * Header in -devel package * *.so link in -devel package * -devel package requires fully versioned base package * rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install and %clean
NEED WORK: * examples are included in both base and -devel package * other files /usr/share/doc/argtable2 should be better packaged in %doc of the devel package * static libraries are shipped in devel package: please have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries and either put the static library in a -static package or remove it.