[Bug 175494] Review Request: new

[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: new


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175494


jpmahowald at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com              |jpmahowald at gmail.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com  2005-12-13 12:36 EST -------
- package meets naming guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on FC4 i386
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 


Stuff needing work:
- warnings about duplicate files
- %doc %{_mandir} is useless, rpm knows about man already
- empty NEWS and FAQ aren't useful, don't include
- Don't need to list every file in %files, including a directory includes its
contents. Wildcards accepted, useful for including everything but not owning the
directory. So you can do:

%files
%{_bindir}/*
%{_datadir}/new
%{_mandir}/*/*

- Your header and pkgconfig files should be in a seperate devel sub package.
This devel package should require the base new package, the exact same version.
See PackageReviewGuidelines on the wiki.

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