Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226060
Summary: Merge Review: libwpd Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: caolanm@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: libwpd
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libwpd/ Initial Owner: caolanm@redhat.com
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=226060
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tomspur@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tomspur@fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-19 08:57:28 EDT --- $ rpmlint ./libwpd-0.8.14-4.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/libwpd-* libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml libwpd-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wpd2text ['/usr/lib64'] libwpd-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wpd2html ['/usr/lib64'] libwpd-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wpd2raw ['/usr/lib64'] libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2raw libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2html libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2text 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath
- please add a %check section (needs BR cppunit-devel): %check make check
- in %description tools: Could be that there is a '(tm)' missing behind 'WordPerfect', isn't it? (Same in main package)
Anything else looks ok: - name ok - license ok - group ok - libs correctly installed - no locales - no static libs - parallel make - %files ok - subpackages require main package implicitely - no *.la
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=226060
--- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caolanm@redhat.com 2010-07-19 09:32:53 EDT --- a) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath done as libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc14
b) make check done as libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc14
c) (tm) as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary_or_D... removed it altogether, done as libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc14
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=226060
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-19 09:58:07 EDT --- Great.
New rpmlint: $ rpmlint ./libwpd-0.8.14-5.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/libwpd-* libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2raw libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2html libwpd-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wpd2text 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
All ignorable.
________________________________________________________________________________
APPROVED
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla