[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for review: libpqxx

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 09:29 +0200, Andreas Bierfert wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> New release =)
> http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/libpqxx-2.5.4-2.src.rpm
> http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/libpqxx.spec


rpmlint checks:

W: libpqxx no-version-in-last-changelog

W: libpqxx-devel no-version-in-last-changelog

- Same issue as in wv2, you need to move the v-r to the same line as the
rest of the changelog descriptor.
- There is no need to BuildRequires: perl, its in the Exceptions list.

- Package meets PackageNamingGuidelines
- spec file matches base package %{name}
- Package meets PackagingGuidelines
- License (BSD) OK, license in spec matches source, license text
included in %doc
- spec is in American English, is legible
- Sources match upstream
- Package compiles and builds on x86 (FC4)
- All necessary BuildRequires present
- No locales in package
- Not relocatable
- All created directories owned by packages
- No duplicate files in %files
- Permissions set properly (for base package, devel is missing defattr)
- Package calls ldconfig properly in post/postun
- clean section present
- macro use is consistent
- package is code not content
- no need for -docs package
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- header files, .so (without version) and .a are in -devel
- devel package requires base package with explicit n = v-r
- all .la files deleted

Minor blockers. Post a fixed spec, and I'll approve.

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]