[Bug 591365] Review Request: libexplain - Library functions to explain system call errors

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=591365

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-01-04 14:03:26 EST ---
The package looks fine now. 

Since some files are licensed under GPLv3+, I recommend to ask upstream to add
the GPLv3 license text to a future release. Currently, only the LGPLv3 license
text is present in the tarball.

$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
explain.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strace -> trace,
traces, strafe
libexplain.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strerror -> str error,
str-error, stressor
libexplain.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strerror -> str
error, str-error, stressor
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

The above spelling errors are false positive and can be ignored.


---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum libexplain-0.40.D001.tar.gz*
    7530e6f5886ffee062f89ff283884ea0  libexplain-0.40.D001.tar.gz
    7530e6f5886ffee062f89ff283884ea0  libexplain-0.40.D001.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    koji scratch build (f15):
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2701054

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[X] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
    - The GPLv3 license text is missing in the tarball. I recommend to ask
upstream to add it.

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. 
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

----------------
Package 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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]