[Bug 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package

[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: gnustep-make -  GNUstep makefile package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649





------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net  2006-08-28 10:34 EST -------
Here's the review:

1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines, however, I'd like to see some
reasoning why /usr/libexec/gnustep is used instead of %{_libdir}/gnustep and,
similarly, %{_datadir}/gnustep/Libraries instead of %{_libdir}/gnustep/Libraries
2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
3. dist tag is present.
4. build root NOT correct, should be:
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
5. license field matches the actual license.
6. license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
7. source files match upstream:
1883a6387405e51ff4c384fb5cc547a7  gnustep-make-1.12.0.tar.gz
8. latest version is being packaged.
9. BuildRequires are proper.
10. package builds in mock (fc5,devel).
11. rpmlint shows errors, but they can be ignored, as discussed in comment #1:
E: gnustep-make non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnustep/makefiles/executable.template 0644
E: gnustep-make non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnustep/makefiles/java-executable.template 0644
12. final provides and requires are sane:
config(gnustep-make) = 1.12.0-5.fc6
gnustep-make = 1.12.0-5.fc6
=
/bin/csh
/bin/echo
/bin/sh
config(gnustep-make) = 1.12.0-5.fc6
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
13. no shared libraries are present.
14. package is not relocatable.
15. owns the directories it creates.
16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
17. no duplicates in %files.
18. file permissions are appropriate
19. %clean is present.
20. %check is not necessary.
21. no scriptlets present.
22. code, not content.
23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
25. no headers.
26. no pkgconfig files.
27. no libtool .la droppings.
28. not a GUI app.
29. not a web app.

To summarize: all seems fine except 1. and 4.

-- 
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.