[Bug 525909] Review Request: sysprof - A system-wide Linux profiler

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Sep 27 09:04:18 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=525909


Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

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




--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-09-27 05:04:17 EDT ---
rpmlint output:
sysprof.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/60-sysprof.rules
sysprof.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sysprof-1.1.2/README
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

- Convert README to UTF8 with the time stamp preserving version in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8

**

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
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.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
- Instead of 
 %dir %{_datadir}/sysprof
 %{_datadir}/sysprof/sysprof.glade
I'd use just
 %{_datadir}/sysprof/
KISS

MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. 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. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add AUTHORS.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A

MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. NEEDSWORK
- Drop the vendor tag from desktop-file-install. Or if you want to build for
EPEL, just use --vendor="".

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

**

Fix the issues before import to CVS, the package has been

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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list