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=671079 Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-24 09:28:07 EST --- OK source files match upstream: $sha256sum sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0.tar.bz* 0b285a3a3fa0efbb50386f5943adb59d8bb8891f923e57725303290d91aa486b sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0.tar.bz2 0b285a3a3fa0efbb50386f5943adb59d8bb8891f923e57725303290d91aa486b sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0.tar.bz2.orig Just for record, sha256sums of other checked components: $sha256sum sblim-smis-hba.spec sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm 4939109c369557a85d76d87c4e4a0b83b3d74ebb0b5b24fa1232712681161f86 sblim-smis-hba.spec 84eb31bb37af4f8f25c58770e253658d6920bf81bb0d734708d96dd986780531 sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. EPL OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. EPL OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. $rpmlint sblim-smis-hba.spec sblim-smis-hba*.rpm sblim-smis-hba.spec:48: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build LDFLAGS="-L${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/cmpi"; sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/cmpi/libcmpiLinux_ECTP_Provider.so sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/cmpi/libcmpiSMIS_HBA_HDR_Provider.so sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/cmpi/libcmpiLinux_Common.so sblim-smis-hba.src:48: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build LDFLAGS="-L${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/cmpi"; 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. We can ignore devel-file-in-non-devel-package - package is primarily for IBM development and it makes no sense to have -devel subpackage in it. Second warning could be ignored, it is intentional (we can't use paralel build because of this as well) - some libraries are built at build time and used for the build of the others. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. N/A shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with proper scriptlets OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. N/A headers in -devel N/A pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. OK obsoletes and provides of the obsoleted package are valid Package looks sane for me now, 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