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=485941 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-18 12:06:30 EDT --- Thanks for the submission. Here's the review. Lines beginning with X need attention; those beginning with * are okay: * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - please add some line continuations to fix this on line 37 * package successfully compiles and builds * BuildRequires are proper * macros fine * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * md5sum matches upstream * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X summary and description good - please add Eclipse somewhere in the Summary. Something like "Eclipse plugin for Valgrind". The description could be a bit more verbose, too. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output * changelog format okay * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * not native, so no rpath, static linking, etc. * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no translations so no locale handling * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output eclipse-valgrind.x86_64: E: no-binary eclipse-valgrind.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I know I told you to put this into /usr/lib{,64}, but let's put the JARs into /usr/share/eclipse and then just make sure that the package is not noarch. Is there an ExcludeArch on ppc64 because there's no valgrind on ppc64? * I verified that it installs and that the valgrind feature is available. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review