[Bug 487349] Review Request: bashdb - BASH debugger, the BASH symbolic debugger
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 25 18:46:27 UTC 2009
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=487349
--- Comment #2 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <promac at gmail.com> 2009-02-25 13:46:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============
>
> Key:
> - = N/A
> x = Check
> ! = Problem
> ? = Not evaluated
>
> === REQUIRED ITEMS ===
> [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
> [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
> supported architecture.
> Tested on: devel/x86_64
> [x] Rpmlint output:
> source RPM: empty
> binary RPM:
> bashdb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bashdb/getopts_long.sh 0644
> => this one is ignorable, the script is to be used from inside bashdb
> emacs-bashdb.noarch: W: no-documentation
> => ignorable
> [x] Package is not relocatable.
> [x] Buildroot is correct
> (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
> [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
> legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> License type as specified by sources: GPLv2+
> License type as specified by spec: GPLv2
> => unless I am mistaken, please fix the spec
> [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
> package is included in %doc.
> [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> SHA1SUM of package: 9a4da7ff53cbb072140b1584385bf87eff26c824
> bashdb-4.0-0.2.tar.bz2
> [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
> [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
> [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
> [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
> [x] Package consistently uses macros.
> [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
> [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
> [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
> [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
> [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
> application.
> [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x] Final provides and requires are sane.
>
> === SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
> [x] Latest version is packaged.
> [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
> translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> Tested on: devel/x86_64
> [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures.
> Tested on:
> [x] Package functions as described.
> Ttested in F10/x86_64
> [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
> [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
> [x] File based requires are sane.
> [x] %check is present and the test passes.
>
>
> === Issues ===
> 1. Please fix the license tag before commit
Changed to GPLv2+
>
> === Notes ===
> 1. I would add INSTALL="install -p" to the make install line
Done. I also added a "check" section.
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
%{__rm} -f "%{buildroot}%{_infodir}/dir"
%check
make check
Thanks.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list