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=657040 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-24 19:12:48 EST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1] [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] PreReq is not used. [x] Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2] [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). [x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Changelog in prescribed format. [!] Rpmlint output is silent. [ ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [3,4] [x] Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 30c2a568ce9e0e5a0fe30746caa3c290 tudu-0.7.tar.gz 30c2a568ce9e0e5a0fe30746caa3c290 tudu-0.7.tar.gz.orig [!] Compiler flags are appropriate. [!] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Each %files section contains %defattr. [x] No %config files under /usr. [x] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] File names are valid UTF-8. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] Package installs properly. [x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6] === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package functions as described. [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] SourceX is a working URL. [x] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] Dist tag is present. [x] No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] Man pages included for all executables. [!] Uses parallel make. === Issues === 1. rpmlint says: tudu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. debuginfo-without-sources: This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. Looks like the default compiler flags are not being used here. ;( 2. Does %{?_smp_mflags} work here? If so, might be nice to use it. -- 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