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=485420 --- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-03 16:57:19 EDT --- >From my PoV it;s still look ugly - I don't think that it's easy to understand that all these tricks with exactarch/noarch for w/o comments. In other words, I think that this package is not legible enough. However, keeping in mind that we really need this package in order to clean up mess with pre-built blobs in qemu here is my REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent (checked on ppc): openbios.src:137: E: files-attr-not-set openbios.src:138: E: files-attr-not-set openbios.src:139: E: files-attr-not-set openbios.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 10) openbios.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot OpenBios implementation of IEEE 1275-1994. openbios.src: E: description-line-too-long features, Open Firmware provides an instruction set independent device interface. openbios-debuginfo.ppc: E: empty-debuginfo-package openbios-ppc.noarch: W: no-documentation openbios-ppc.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/share/openbios/openbios-ppc 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I've got only one complain about explicit installation of docs in %install section. I't enogh just to list them as %doc + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. - The spec file for the package is not legible enough (see messages above). unfortunately, I don't think that this can be easily fixed, because this situation is relatively complex (different parts of this package should be built on different arches). - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Unfortunately, I failed to download sources using the following address (taken from spec-file): http://downloads.sourceforge.net/openbios/openbios-1.0.tar.gz + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (see koji ogs above) + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. - The package must own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately, I can't find that sub-package owns %{_datadir}/openbios + A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - Permissions on files must be set properly. See rpmlint warnings above. + The package has a %clean section. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, fix issues, mentioned above. -- 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