[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712


Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(amdunn at gmail.com)




--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>  2009-03-25 07:20:02 EDT ---
+ rpmlint output

rpmlint output all looks fine, and the things it notices
can be ignored.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
  LGPLv2 (not +)
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  63ec244511e58bd1cbf5513dc7aaad8e 169186
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
- package owns all directories it creates

  Package should own %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}.
  Then %files should add %exclude lines for everything in -devel.
  See the example:
http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec

+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
+ large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

------------

Please fix the directory ownership issue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.