[Bug 474843] Review Request: pdfbook - Rearrange pages in a PDF file into signatures

[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=474843


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-10 16:52:21 EDT ---
Note that you are guaranteed that %{fedora} >= 9 at this point, since you
cannot branch for F-8.  No harm in keeping the conditional if you really want
it, though.

I'm a bit confused about the versioning.  One one hand, you could say that the
version is simply 20070930 and use that as Version:; on the other hand, you
could say that upstream has never released any version and so this is a
prerelease.  In the latter case, we don't use Release: 1 or greater for
prereleases, so you would have:
  Version: 0
  Release: 0.2.20070930%{?dist}
according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

That's really the only issue I see.

* source files match upstream.  
  242eb0943c5574a6a1ac7d1e40354d3e2be74e838e82241c0f6b5d1d06f913fe  pdfbook.c
  266a40b44aec5f182328054dd2ed301fb4c7d60414423a9bb4e2c27c7cffe1d4  README
X package does not meet versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pdfbook = 0-2.20070930.fc11
   pdfbook(x86-64) = 0-2.20070930.fc11
  =
   poppler-utils
   texlive-texmf-latex

* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.