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=462311 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-08 19:11:32 EDT --- rpmlint says: raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 Argv raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 osdSwap2 raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 osdSwap4 I guess the executables are expected to provide these. Since this isn't a library you'd expect to be used by other problems, I don't see a problem here. raidutils.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 This is a minor artifact of autoconf; you can fix it if you like with a quick call to sed but it's probably not worth it. I do wish the package had a somewhat less generic name, but it's been around for over a decade and I don't see any point in trying to change it now. I don't see any problems with the upstream being inactive; there's little or no security exposure here, the hardware is no longer sold and the software works. At least, I'm taking your word that it does; I don't have the hardware. There's no reason for BuildRequires: gcc-c++; it's in the default buildroot. That's really a minor issue; you can take it out when you import the package. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: ac350f60b9635d952a7a5664effa59e418ada9ad3deba66d46e6e0a094966d65 raidutils-0.0.6.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires (gcc-c++ unneeded). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libraidutil.so.0()(64bit) raidutils = 0.0.6-2.fc11 raidutils(x86-64) = 0.0.6-2.fc11 = /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libraidutil.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) * shared libraries are installed; ldconfig called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED; just remove the errant gcc-c++ build dependency when you check in. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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