[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

[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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900


bdpepple at ameritech.net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|caillon at redhat.com          |bdpepple at ameritech.net
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net  2006-05-12 11:09 EST -------
MD5Sums:
b5366181170e473c918537af145adafb  monodoc-1.1.13.tar.gz

Good:
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* Builds fine in Mock

Bad:
* COPYING file should be added to %doc.
* Inconsistent use of ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} & %{buildroot}.
* Ownership problems with some of the directories.  In general, you don't want
to use wildcards to pull in children directories.
* Unnecessary scriptlet for shared libraries, which this package doesn't have.

Minor:
* rpmlint errors:
 E: monodoc no-binary
 E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
 W: monodoc no-documentation
 W: monodoc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/monodoc.pc
 W: monodoc one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig

Most of these can be ignored since this is a mono package, and the ones that
should be addressed are mention in the Bad section of this review.

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