[Bug 513896] Review Request: pcp - performance monitoring and collection service

[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=513896





--- Comment #22 from Jarod Wilson <jarod at redhat.com>  2009-10-05 13:51:48 EDT ---
Finally getting back to looking at this again, sorry for the delay.

Formal review check list from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines:

MUST items-
* rpmlint output: still rather noisy, but has all been explained acceptably
* package naming: ok
* spec file name: ok
* package meets guidelines: almost... Just noticed the use of %makeinstall,
which I don't think we've touched on yet... Its use is HIGHLY frowned upon...
* license: ok
* license in spec matches: ok
* license doc included: ok
* spec in english: ok
* spec legible: ok
* sources match upstream: ok
    $ md5sum pcp-3.0.0-5.src.tar.gz*
    de5b6be8fcd08985756a01fc276774d7  pcp-3.0.0-5.src.tar.gz
    de5b6be8fcd08985756a01fc276774d7  pcp-3.0.0-5.src.tar.gz.1
* compiles and packages correctly: ok (F12/x86_64 smoke-tested)
* ExcludeArch where necessary: n/a
* ExcludeArch for build failure filed and noted: n/a
* sane BuildRequires: ok
* locales handled properly: n/a
* ldconfig called where appropriate: ok
* no bundled copies of system libs: ok
* relocatable justification: n/a
* owns created directories: ok
* files not listed 2x: ok
* permissions: ok
* consistent macros: ok
* permissible code: ok
* documentation: ok
* header files in -devel: ok (with exceptions as noted earlier in review)
* static libs: n/a
* pkgconfig bits: n/a
* versioned libs properly split up: ok
* devel packages requires its base package: ok
* no libtool archives: ok
* gui .desktop file: n/a
* no owning others files: ok
* %install starts w/rm -rf BR: ok
* %files all UTF-8: ok

SHOULD items-
* source needs license text: n/a
* spec translations, if available: n/a
* package builds in mock: ok
* builds on all supported arches: untested
* package functions as expected: presumed
* sane scriptlets: ok
* fully version requires for sub-packages: ok and/or n/a
* pkgconfig stuff: n/a
* file-based deps: n/a


Just the %makeinstall bit that needs fixing up, and I think we're all set.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

-- 
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.