Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190070 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-27 10:44 EST ------- Issues: spectool cannot fetch the upstream source; your Source: URL is wrong. I think it should be http://dl.sourceforge.net/parchive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz, which I'll assume is the proper upstream. To help those of us who won't understand why we would need this software, could you perhaps include a quick description of a PAR2 file in %description? Please use the recommended BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Please remove Distribution: SuSE 9.1. I'm not sure about your Obsoletes: and Provides:, but I'll assume you have some previous package history that requires this. I'll ask the list for a bit of guidance. rpmlint complains: E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairersourcefile.h E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairer.cpp E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/galois.h E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairersourcefile.cpp E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par1repairer.cpp You should remove the executable bits from these files in %build; otherwise RPM thinks they're executables and sticks them in the debuginfo package. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. X specfile is properly named but the preamble needs minor cleanup. %prep and below look good. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible and is included in the package as %doc. * source files match upstream: 1551b63e57e3c232254dc62073b723a9 par2cmdline-0.4.tar.gz 1551b63e57e3c232254dc62073b723a9 par2cmdline-0.4.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint has a few complaints X final requires are sane; final provides * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * creates no non-%doc directories. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. O %check not present; no test suite upstream. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review