[Bug 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu

[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=485418


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-02-17 02:38:18 EDT ---
REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent:

[petro at Sulaco rpmbuild]$ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/vgabios-0.6-0.3beta.fc10.noarch.rpm 
vgabios.noarch: W: non-standard-group Application/Emulators
vgabios.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0.3 ['0.6-0.3beta.fc10',
'0.6-0.3beta']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco rpmbuild]$

These two warnings are easy-to-fix. First, you accidentally made a typo - non
Application/Emulators, but Applications/Emulators (see
/usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS ). Second, just use correct EVR in %changelog,
e.g. replace 

* Mon Feb 16 2009 Glauber Costa <glommer at redhat.com> - 0.6.0.3

with

* Mon Feb 16 2009 Glauber Costa <glommer at redhat.com> - 0.6-0.3beta

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines, and I have only one small advice.
This string (looks like leftover) should be removed:

mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/vgabios

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file with text of the license is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. 

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum vgabios-0.6b.tgz*
36399621c4d6753e83a3cec3009c7183  vgabios-0.6b.tgz
36399621c4d6753e83a3cec3009c7183  vgabios-0.6b.tgz.from_srpm
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (my ppc)
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to handle locales.
+ No shared libraries.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently use macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ No large documentation files.
+ The stuff, that the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of
the application.
+ No header files.
+ No static libraries.
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ No library files with a suffix
+ No .la libtool archives
+ Not a GUI app
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in the package must be valid UTF-8.

Assuming, that you fixed three issues, described above (two from rpmlint and
one leftover), and that buildroot already contains latest dev86 rpm, this
package is 


APPROVED

-- 
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.