Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-06 17:48 EST ------- Thanks. Builds in mock; rpmlint has this to say: W: rpld mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10) Fix if you like. W: rpld incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8-1 1.8-3.fc6 You should make a changelog entry at minimum for each release. The current release is 1.8-3 but the last changelog entry is from 1.8-1. Hmm, not that I look at things, this is a beta release, isn't it? In that case you should follow the naming guidelines for prereleases: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines So this should be named something like rpmd-1.8-0.1.beta1. If you revise it, go to 1.8-0.2.beta1. When beta2 comes out, then go to 1.8-0.3.beta2. And when it's finally released (if it ever is), you can go to 1.8-1. Basically you can put anything you want after the second number in the release, even if things don't sort alphabetically, as long as you keep incrementing the second number. I'm still not seeing the proper flags being passed to the compiler: gcc -c -o protocol.o protocol.c gcc -c -o rpld.o rpld.c You're using the patch, but for some reason you need a second make call in the %build section as the first one doesn't actually build the software. I just duplicated the "make" line verbatim. * source files match upstream: 08a020c08a466378a99edb88ea98ba35 rpld-1.8-beta-1.tar.gz X package meets naming guidelines (needs to use prerelease naming conventions). * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package is busted. X rpmlint has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane (no non-glibc requirements). * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. It is not possible for me to test this package. * 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 scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review