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=566171 Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mschwe...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> 2010-02-20 12:57:36 EST --- > Summary: A userspace USB HID access library It's wide-spread taste practise to omit leading articles, such as "A" or "The": Summary: Userspace USB HID access library > License: GPLv3+ Doesn't seem to be true. [...@faldor libhid-0.2.17]$ grep -i "version 3" * -R|wc -l 0 [...@faldor libhid-0.2.17]$ grep -i "version 2" * -R|wc -l 22 * %description of -devel packages mentions "static" libraries, which are not included. > # Force use of system libtool The big question here is: Why? > %makeinstall https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used > %defattr(0644,root,root) > %{_mandir}/man1/* The extra %defattr here is acceptable, but dangerous. It wouldn't be the first time somebody adds files somewhere below and overlooks the 0644 mode. If you need to fix the man page permissions, chmod after %setup is safer. * libhid-devel is missing "Requires: libusb-devel", since it depends on usb.h and libhid.pc needs -lusb. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
