[Bug 241835] Review Request: bottlerocket - Utilities to use the FireCracker X10 kit

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 3 23:32:24 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: Review Request: bottlerocket - Utilities to use the FireCracker X10 kit


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241835


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-06-03 19:32 EST -------
Looks good; there's a single rpmlint warning:
  W: bottlerocket incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.04-1 0.04c-1.fc8
Looks like the "c" was dropped from the version.

I note that debian is packaging 0.05b3, even in their stable release.  I suppose
its up to you which version you package, but if you do want to package the beta
please be careful with the prerelease versioning (0.05-0.1.b3).

This package includes a binary /usr/bin/br, which is a pretty generic name. 
However, this package has also been around for quite some time, a google search
reveals no matches except for this package, and there seem to be plenty of other
information, scripts and packages which expect that name for the executable.  So
I think it's OK.

Really, since the only issue is a typo in the changelog entry, I'll go ahead and
approve this and you can fix it when you check in.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   deb8fbf8856f87af15fa9883e07b1fddb2aa78f6b4c7d119ae4bd664dc1d19ae  
   bottlerocket-0.04c.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
O latest version is 0.05b3, but it's a beta.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I do not have the hardware 
  necessary for testing this.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

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