[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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

Summary: Review Request: boo


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092





------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com  2006-07-24 20:55 EST -------
Isn't building, is expecting to be in %{_prefix}/lib. Needs fixing.

After defining a %{monodir} to be %{_prefix}/lib, rpmlint found:

Source RPM:
E: boo hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
Workaround to make it build. Ignore at least for now.

W: boo rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot}


W: boo mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
Not important but easy to fix.

W: boo patch-not-applied Patch0: build.patch
Drop the patch.

rpmlint of boo-devel:
W: boo-devel no-documentation
Ignore.

rpmlint of boo:
E: boo no-binary
E: boo only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Expected for mono.

E: boo-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package
Drop the debuginfo package.


Missing a update-mime-database scriplet.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets


Good stuff:
- package meets naming guidelines
- license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- 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: defined %{monodir}
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file




EXTRA STUFF FOR PACKAGES WITH DEVEL
======================================

- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r 

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.