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=447368 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-29 17:26:51 EDT --- I ran out of time there for a bit, but I have some time now. This builds fine; rpmlint is down to just complaints about setuid binaries, which we've already established is OK. Generally I wouldn't advocate static linking, but I don't really see how it makes a difference as the library is only intended for use within this package. If it's what upstream recommends then that's fine, although those issues were trivial to fix in the usual manner. There does seem to be a test suite; did you try running it in a %check section? I tried and I get "All 0 tests passed" but it's possible that something other than a plain "make check" is needed. I don't think this is a significant issue, though, and it's the only issue I see, so I'll go ahead and approve this package and if your investigations show that it is reasonable to call the test suite then you can set that up. I've sponsored you; it should take perhaps an hour for the ACLs to propagate and then you can make your CVS request. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c3bca449abdf28b66f6aede8892ce61967b5c1d758ba567e8648ccfb0cf914ec schroot_1.2.3.orig.tar.gz * 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 acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: dchroot-1.2.3-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm dchroot = 1.2.3-2.fc12 dchroot(x86-64) = 1.2.3-2.fc12 = libboost_filesystem-mt.so.5()(64bit) libboost_program_options-mt.so.5()(64bit) libboost_regex-mt.so.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblockdev.so.1()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) schroot-1.2.3-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm config(schroot) = 1.2.3-2.fc12 schroot = 1.2.3-2.fc12 schroot(x86-64) = 1.2.3-2.fc12 = /bin/sh config(schroot) = 1.2.3-2.fc12 libboost_filesystem-mt.so.5()(64bit) libboost_program_options-mt.so.5()(64bit) libboost_regex-mt.so.5()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblockdev.so.1()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) ? There's a test suite, but no %check section. Not sure it makes sense to run it. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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 * 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 -- 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