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=487365 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> 2009-02-25 17:09:33 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 * 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 - other than timestamp differences, my generated tarball matches * 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 OProfile". - please remove " (Incubation)" from the summary - remove "powerful" in the description. The description could also mention the CDT. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output $ rpmlint eclipse-oprofile-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm eclipse-oprofile.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 4) eclipse-oprofile.src: W: strange-permission eclipse-oprofile-fetch-src.sh 0775 Please fix both of these things. Just make the fetch script 644 or something and modify the instructions for generating the tarball to be: "sh ./eclipse-oprofile-fetch-src.sh". * 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 * one native bit has 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 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output $ rpmlint eclipse-oprofile-* eclipse-oprofile.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/opcontrol eclipse-oprofile.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/opcontrol 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. This is fine 'cause it needs to be there for correct use of pam/consolehelper, right? * I verified that it installs and that the oprofile feature is available. Could you post a test project to try to verify that the functionallity works? I'm getting the OProfile view but not seeing any results. -- 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