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

[Bug 182122] Review Request: multitail



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: multitail


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182122





------- Additional Comments From tibbs math uh edu  2006-02-22 14:43 EST -------
OK, the bug is repoened and back in shape.  Now, onto the review:

Release: should start at 1 and should include disttag.
Don't set Vendor: in extras packages.
Buildroot should include user ID.
Requires: ncurses is not necessary; rpm will pick up the dependency.
Suggest using %setup -q for a quieter build.
Suggest fixing up line endings in HTML files to quiet rpmlint.
Pass %{optflags} to make.
Add the release to the most recent changelog entry.

I will attach a patch to fix these and to put the spec more into line with the
Extras template.

I don't know what it hurts, but as in a previous comment, rpmlint complains
about the permissions on the source tarball.  I suggest changing the permisions
on the tarball in the srpm to 0644.

Please consider including the actual text of the license in your tarball.  (The
package submitter is supposed to bug upstream to do this, but you're the
upstream so I guess I'm supposed to bug you.)

Good stuff:
After building with the patched spec, rpmlint is silent and the package builds
in mock (development, i386 and x86_64).
Source file matches upstream.
License is appropriate and matches source.

Fix up the above issues and I'll approve the package, or let me know what you
disagree with and we'll figure something out.

-- 
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.


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