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=691096 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-10 17:02:32 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: fde024a200b064b54accd1959f7e642e iperf-3.0b4.tar.gz fde024a200b064b54accd1959f7e642e iperf-3.0b4.tar.gz.orig See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Can you pick one of "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" or "%{buildroot}" and use that only in the spec. Makes things more readable. ;) 2. Some of the source files contain: * Copyright (c) 2009, The Regents of the University of California, through * Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required * approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved. I guess I would suggest a mail to upstream developers. Ask them if these files really are supposed to be released under the BSD license. :( 3. Can you avoid %makeinstall ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used 4. It looks like it's looking for uuid: checking for uuid_create... no You might add uuid-devel to BuildRequires? 5. rpmlint says: iperf3.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0b4-2 ['3.0-0.0.b4.fc15', '3.0-0.0.b4'] the changelog should not have "3.0b4-2" but "3.0-0.0.b4" -- 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