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=653682 Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |packages@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-17 18:30:28 EST --- Since I am not yet sponsored I can only do an informal review for this package. Please note that since I am quite new here I may have overseen some details. --- Informal review: [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = not ok [+] The rpmlint output seems to be ok: jemalloc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) malloc -> mallow, Mallorca, Mallory jemalloc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow, Mallorca, Mallory jemalloc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) malloc -> mallow, Mallorca, Mallory jemalloc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow, Mallorca, Mallory - I vote for Mallorca, but if you really want to you can stick to malloc. ;-) jemalloc.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man3/jemalloc.3.gz 65: warning: `UR' not defined jemalloc.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man3/jemalloc.3.gz 67: warning: `UE' not defined - honestly, I have no idea what those warnings mean. I saw they were no blockers in other reviews, but this is a bit disappointing. Maybe someone can say more about these. jemalloc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pprof - would be nice to have one but no blocker. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved license (BSD) [+] The License field matches the actual license [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Used sources match width upstream sources (md5) rpmdev-md5 jemalloc-2.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm 4687f59c073975f39375ece49c402bdc jemalloc-2.0.1.tar.bz2 md5sum jemalloc-2.0.1.tar.bz2 4687f59c073975f39375ece49c402bdc jemalloc-2.0.1.tar.bz2 [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture (x86_64 tested) [+] No architectures are known not to work [+] All build dependencies are listed in the spec file (checked with mock) [o] No locales for the package [+] Package stores shared libraries and calls ldconfig in %post/%postun [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [-] Package does not own all directories that are created: -devel sub-package creates %{_includedir}/jemalloc but doesn't own it [+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [o] No large documentation files [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [+] No Header files included outside of the -devel package [o] No static libraries included [+] Library files ending with .so correctly in a -devel package [-] -devel package should require the package correctly as %{name} = %{version}-%{release} (missed the -%{release} part) [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 --- Further comments: - The description contains a lot of trademarks. As far as I can tell they are used properly, but I feel a bit uncomfortable with that. Don't you think that the users searching for this kind of package know who uses it for what? However, I _think_ it is safe like that but maybe others can comment on this. - A dot would be the perfect ending to the description of the devel package. - Extensive globbing in the file section is a dangerous thing; you might include files and dirs you don't want to include and it gets more legible if you are a bit more explicit. Especially when you glob just one file like in %{_mandir}/man3/*. - Would do no harm to use the %{name} macro in the SOURCE0 tag. --- Conclusion: Yes, the package needs some fixing right now, but please note that I like the clean look of the SPEC file and overall I think it is almost complete. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review