[Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 23 11:20:40 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: symlinks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445
wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Flag| |needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com)
------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-23 06:20 EST -------
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
- Spec file matches base package name.
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
- License is "distributable", already discussed above
- License field in spec matches
- Spec is legible, in American English
- Sources match upstream, sha1sum:
a3dafe4b55206dcf19a8b4c67252628c2ad3fab4 symlinks-1.2.tar.gz
- No BuildRequires
- No locales/find_lang
- Package is not relocatable
- Permissions are sane [*]
- Package has a correct %clean section.
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage not needed/used (no %doc files at all)
- no headers/static/.pc/.la libs
- no need for ldconfig or scriptlets
- not a GUI
- Package builds fine in mock/devel/x86_64
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
- Package owns all files it creates; it does not create any directories
- rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
W: symlinks invalid-license distributable
- discussed above
W: symlinks setup-not-quiet
- please consider using setup -q
Binary RPM:
E: symlinks no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
that;s a MUSTFIX: Package lacks cleaning the buildroot in the %install section
rpmlint of symlinks:
W: symlinks invalid-license distributable
- see above
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. - OK for devel/x86_64 and i386
- Should build on all supported archs - tested on x86_64 and i386, OK
- Should function as described - OK
- Should have sane scriptlets - OK (no scriptlets)
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. -
not needed
- Should have dist tag OK
- Should package latest version OK
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) - OK (none)
Summary:
mostly OK, with one MUSTFIX and a couple of cosmetic fixes:
cosmetic:
- please consider using the newer preferred value in %files, (-,root,root,-)
- please add -q to setup in order to silence it
- it would be nice to add usage of smp_flags to make (not that it matters for a
5K source, but the rules are the rules)
MUSTFIX
- %install should contain rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Please fix the above and the package is APPROVED
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list