[Bug 226039] Merge Review: libraw1394

[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: Merge Review: libraw1394


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226039


tcallawa at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs+




------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com  2008-02-26 09:21 EST -------
However, I can do a review quickly for you. :)

The only issues I see are: 
1. The License tag is incorrect, it should be LGPLv2+.
2. You're using a tab separator on line 11, and spaces everywhere else.

Since these items are pedantic, and easily corrected in CVS, this package is
approved. Please commit those changes. :)

Here's the full review notes:

Good:

- rpmlint checks return:
libraw1394.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11)
libraw1394.src: W: invalid-license LGPL
libraw1394.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL
libraw1394-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL
libraw1394-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL

Needs fixing in CVS, not a blocker for review.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines (except for license tag)
- license (LGPLv2+) 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
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r

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