[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot

[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=474768





--- Comment #6 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer <pcfe at redhat.com>  2008-12-16 08:52:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)

[...]
> I still see "Summary: A enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot" ;-)
doh! my bad, misread originally. Fixed now.

> Removing definitely is better. Static subpackages are hightly discouraged in
> Fedora; see packaging guidelines for details.

OK, removed the provisions to make static package from spec file completely to
keep is clean.

> > License: GPLv2
> Looks more like GPLv2+ to me (or did I miss something?). 
No, you are right, I had missed the 'or later' in my first and second look.
Fixed now.

> > Requires: gdbm
> Why is that needed? RPM automatically adds a requires for "libgdbm.so.2()",
> hence please remove it if there there are no good reason for it.
Thanks, you're of course right, removed.

> >$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jpilot-backup-* jpilot-backup-0.53-4.fc10.src.rpm 
> >jpilot-backup.src: W: strange-permission jpilot-backup.spec 0600
> >3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> 
> Please fix

Fixed.

$ rpmlint jpilot-backup.spec /var/lib/mock//fedora-10-x86_64/result/*rpm
jpilot-backup.spec:33: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
jpilot-backup.src:33: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

I let it nag as '%configure --disable-static' did not help in making no .la, so
there is little point in leaving a useless flag in.

-- 
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.