[Bug 744334] Review Request: netcdf-fortran - Fortran libraries for netCDF-4

[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=744334

--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher at gmail.com> 2012-03-07 09:47:58 EST ---
Good:

- rpmlint checks return:

etcdf-fortran.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.2 ['4.2-1.fc16',
'4.2-1']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.

netcdf-fortran-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs ->
lobs, lib, lbs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

netcdf-fortran-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nf-config
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

netcdf-fortran-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Minor bits.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( NetCDF ) 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 

What about shipping examples/ in %doc?

Otherwise, good.

-- 
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.