[Bug 226111] Merge Review: lvm2

[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=226111





--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-03-28 14:24:36 EDT ---
rpmlint output:
device-mapper-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
device-mapper-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
device-mapper-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided device-mapper
lvm2.src:31: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes lvm
lvm2.src:52: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/lvm 0555
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lock/lvm 0700
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/lvmdump 0555
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/fsadm 0555
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/lvm/backup 0700
lvm2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/lvm/cache/.cache
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/lvm/cache/.cache 0600
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/lvm/archive 0700
lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/lvm/cache 0700
lvm2.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided lvm
lvm2-cluster.x86_64: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Description in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd
lvm2-cluster.x86_64: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Short-Description in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd
lvm2-cluster.x86_64: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd
lvm2-cluster.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name clvmd
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 9 warnings.

- Any reason why SMP make is not used? You should remove the DESTDIR argument
from the build phase.

- Modify init script to respect guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript


MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NEEDSFIX
- Source code files do not contain license headers. Please have them added.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSFIX
- Source url is missing, but source matches upstream. Must add source url.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.