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=511212 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-27 19:40:24 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: a9aba6ae59030a148dd95bfea163852c 75cab275433e.tar.gz ecc791dec7788293ad3d7f22b1d80cf5 75cab275433e.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. What is the 'uid' define for? 2. You should use %global instead of %define. 3. Is this a pre-release for version 1.0? Or a post release of 0.9? or something else? The release might need adjustment. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release I suspect it should be something like: 1.0.0-0.0.75cab275433e ? 4. The %{configure} macro should pass all of these I think, so no need to do so: --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --localstatedir=%{_var} \ --libdir=%{_libdir} 5. Your source doesn't match the upstream Source url. Perhaps you are using a checkout? It needs to match exactly. 6. rpmlint says: cluster-glue.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/cores/nobody 0700 cluster-glue.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/cores/root 0700 cluster-glue.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/cores/daemon 0700 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. I think those can be ignored. -- 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