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=501958 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-05 19:31:55 EDT --- This builds fine, though I'm still seeing the 0775 permissions thing. You didn't respond to tell me if you see that as well, so I did a koji build and it doesn't happen on the buildsys, so I'll just assume some problem with mock on my end. Ignoring those permission complaints, I get: scotch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation scotch-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation These aren't problems. scotch.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/scotch.conf scotch-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These are necessary because of the way the libraries from this package are placed into a subdirectory. Honestly, looking at the contents of /usr/lib64/scotch, I have to wonder why you'd want to go through that extra effort. There's nothing there that's going to conflict, and you're not doing any fancy versioning of the directory that you'd need for parallel installation or anything like that, so why not just put the libraries in %_libdir and dispense with the ld.so.conf.d magic? The source file downloaded from the Source0 URL is not the same as the source file in the tarball. The download is quite a bit smaller, and seems to contain older files. CeCILL-C is not GPL-compatible, but mpich2 is MIT and zlib is very liberally licensed so I see no linking issues. I note that the -static subpackage has no dependency on the -devel package. I don't believe this is mandatory, but most -static packages seem to do it and it does make sense from the perspective of someone who wants to use it (yum install scotch-static would bring in what you need to actually use those libraries). X source files do not match upstream. * 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. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. ? rpmlint has a couple of complaints which may go away. * final provides and requires: scotch-5.1.6-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm libptscotch.so.0()(64bit) libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit) libptscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit) libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit) libscotch.so.0()(64bit) libscotcherr.so.0()(64bit) libscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit) libscotchmetis.so.0()(64bit) scotch = 5.1.6-3.fc12 scotch(x86-64) = 5.1.6-3.fc12 = /sbin/ldconfig libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libmpich.so.1.1()(64bit) libptscotch.so.0()(64bit) libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit) libptscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit) libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit) libscotch.so.0()(64bit) libscotcherr.so.0()(64bit) libscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit) libscotchmetis.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) scotch-devel-5.1.6-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm scotch-devel = 5.1.6-3.fc12 scotch-devel(x86-64) = 5.1.6-3.fc12 = libptscotch.so.0()(64bit) libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit) libptscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit) libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit) libscotch.so.0()(64bit) libscotcherr.so.0()(64bit) libscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit) libscotchmetis.so.0()(64bit) scotch = 5.1.6-3.fc12 scotch-static-5.1.6-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm scotch-static = 5.1.6-3.fc12 scotch-static(x86-64) = 5.1.6-3.fc12 = scotch = 5.1.6-3.fc12 * %check is present; no test suite upstream. I've no way to test this. The executables don't crash, but I have no date to feed them. * shared libraries are installed: ldconfig called properly unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries present in a separate -static package. * no libtool .la files. 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