[Bug 487312] Review Request: tuned - A dynamic adaptive system tuning daemon

[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=487312





--- Comment #5 from Thomas Woerner <twoerner at redhat.com>  2009-03-02 06:30:09 EDT ---
MUST Items
----------

[FAIL] rpmlint

$ rpmlint tuned-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm 
tuned.src:78: E: files-attr-not-set
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

[FAIL] Attrs not set: This is the result of adding the %doc before the %defattr
in the -utils subpackage.

$ rpmlint tuned-0.1.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 
tuned.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/tuned $prog
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[OK] The warning here can be ignored, it is not incoherent, because $prog
contains the correct value.

$ rpmlint tuned-utils-0.1.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 
tuned-utils.noarch: E: devel-dependency kernel-debuginfo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

[OK] The error can be ignored, the kernel-debuginfo package is requires to use
systemtap scripts.


[OK] Named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package.
[OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[INFO] Meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+).

[INFO] COPYING file is not the latest version. Also the headers in the files
are the old address version. (The automake packages, up to 1.10, contain the
old v2 version, which is bad).

[OK] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[OK] License file included in %doc.
[OK] Spec file written in American English.
[OK] Spec file is legible.
[INFO] Source matches upstream.

[INFO] Cloning the git tree will not checkout the latest version, but v0.1.1.

[OK] Package successfully compiles and builds at least one primary
architecture.
[OK] No build dependencies, therefore no BuildRequires needed.
[OK] No localized files, therefore no locale support needed.
[OK] No schared libs, therefore no ldconfig needed.
[OK] Not relocatable.
[OK] Package ownes all directories it creates.
[OK] Does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[FAIL] Permissions on files are set properly.

See rpminfo section.

[OK] Has a correct %clean section.
[OK] Macros consistently used.
[OK] Code or permissible content.
[OK] No large documentation files, therefore no -doc subpackage needed.
[OK] %doc files do not affect runtime.
[OK] No header files and no libraries, therefore no -devel subpackage needed.
[OK] No static libs, therefore no -static subpackage needed.
[OK] No pkgconfig file, therefore no requires for pkgconfig needed.
[OK] No GUI applications, therefore no %{name}.desktop file needed.
[OK] Does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[OK] Cleanup at the beginning of %install.
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items
------------

[OK] License file included.
[BAD] No translations for Non-English languages.
[OK] Builds in mock.
[OK] Should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[OK] Package functions as described.
[OK] Scriptlets seem to be sane.
[OK] No -devel subpackage, therefore no requirement for base package needed.
[OK] -utils subpackage is independent, therefore no requirement for base
package needed.
[OK] No pkgconfig files, therefore no placement needed.
[OK] No file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin.

-- 
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.