[Bug 519074] Review Request: fakeroot-ng - Fools programs into thinking they are running with root permission

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519074





--- Comment #1 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at gmail.com>  2009-08-29 08:14:01 EDT ---
$ rpmlint fakeroot-ng.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint fakeroot-ng-0.17-0.1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint fakeroot-ng-0.17-0.1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
fakeroot-ng-debuginfo-0.17-0.1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

MUSTs
-----

OK: package is named according to the package naming guidelines
OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec
OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines
OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines
NOT OK: license file is included in %doc
OK: specfile is written in AE
OK: specfile is legible
OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source,
    md5sum fits
NOT OK: package compiles successfully
 the package does not compile for ppc64. See
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1642634
 Possible solutions:
 Patch the configure script yourself and/or report this issue to upstream.
 You can temporarily work around this with 'ExcludeArch: ppc64' to get through
 the build system, but please note that this is really just a workaround and
 no solution
N/A: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
 there are no build dependencies
N/A: package handles locales properly
     there are no locales installed with this package
N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun
     there is no binary installed with this package
OK: package is not designed to be relocatable
OK: package owns directorys it creates
OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK: macros are consistently used
OK: package contains code
N/A: subpackage for large documentation files
     there are no large documentation files
OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc
N/A: header files are in a -devel package
     there are no header files installed with this package
N/A: static libraries are in a -static package
     there are no static libs installed with this package
N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc)
     there is no pkgconfig file
N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix
     there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library
N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package
     there is no devel package
N/A: any libtool archives are removed
     there are no libtool archives
N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application
     this is a command line application
OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages
OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install
N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8
     not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames


SHOULD
------
N/A: non-English translations for description and summary
     there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does
not
     provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this
     package.
OK: package builds in mock
NOT OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures
     see above
N/A: program runs
     I did not test myself if the program works as it should
N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package
     there are no subpackages
N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package
     there is no pkgconfig file
N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

- I would recommend to use the %{version} tag in Source, since this
  makes maintenance work easier
- the CFLAGS parameter for make is missing in %build section
- there is a %doc without any following files in one line
- the license file (COPYING) is missing in the %files section
- please also add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, INSTALL, NEWS, README and README.porting
  to the %files-section and tag them as %doc
- the header files (*.h) are missing a licensing hint, it would also be nice to
  see one there. Please report this to upstream

-- 
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.