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: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-28 00:43 EST ------- Full review of requirements checklist: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently * dist tag is present * build root is correct -- almost, but not quite, should be %{version} in there instead of % {libhugetlbfs_version} * license field matches the actual license -- LGPL * license is open source-compatible and license file is included in the package * source files match upstream -- 0a34f3327babcd091f8a06c97fd99873 libhugetlbfs-20060627.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged * BuildRequires are proper -- need to remove /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h * package builds in mock (builds for fc5/x86_64, i386 and ppc) * rpmlint is silent -- not quite: W: libhugetlbfs no-soname /usr/lib64/libhugetlbfs.so E: libhugetlbfs script-without-shellbang /usr/share/libhugetlbfs/ldscripts/elf_x86_64.xB E: libhugetlbfs script-without-shellbang /usr/share/libhugetlbfs/ldscripts/elf_x86_64.xBDT The first isn't a problem, the 2nd and 3rd we can get rid of by chmod -x'ing the ldscripts. (I'm assuming they don't need to be executable). final provides and requires are sane: /build/RPMS/x86_64/libhugetlbfs-0.20060627-1.x86_64.rpm libhugetlbfs.so()(64bit) libhugetlbfs = 0.20060627-1 = /build/RPMS/x86_64/libhugetlbfs-test-0.20060627-1.x86_64.rpm libhugetlbfs-test = 0.20060627-1 = libhugetlbfs = 0.20060627-1 libhugetlbfs.so()(64bit) * no versioned libs, okay to put .so in base package instead of -devel * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates -- missing a '%dir %{_datadir}/libhugetlbfs' for the base package * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * no %check is present, n/a * no scriptlets present. * 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 files * not a GUI app * not a web app Just a few minor things left to iron out, we're in the home stretch. :) -- 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