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=678442 --- Comment #11 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-03 13:27:06 EDT --- Here are a few general comments before I get to the usual review items. First, if this spec file will only be used for Fedora, then the following elements of the spec file are unnecessary: - The BuildRoot tag - rm -rf %{buildroot} at the top of the %install script - The %clean script - %defattr(-,root,root,-) at the top of %files Second, there are some debian-isms in these script files. For example, /usr/libexec/os-probes/init/10filesystems contains references to anna-install and /lib/debian-installer, and /usr/share/os-prober/common.sh contains references to mapdevfs. Will the absence of these on Fedora lead to problems? Third, from poking around in the scripts a little, I see uses of binaries in the following packages: coreutils, cryptsetup-luks, dmraid, grep, lvm2, module-init-tools, udev, and util-linux-ng. None of them are Requires of this package. Should they be? Output from rpmlint: os-prober.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os-prober os-prober.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary linux-boot-prober os-prober-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. The debuginfo package is empty because the newns binary is not in a location where rpmbuild expects an ELF object. Is there any way that binary could be put directly in /usr/libexec; i.e., not in a subdirectory? +: OK -: must be fixed =: needs attention N: not applicable MUST: [-]: rpmlint output (posted above, shows the -debuginfo problem) [+]: package name meets naming guidelines [+]: spec file name matches base package name [+]: package meets the packaging guidelines [+]: package meets the licensing guidelines [+]: license field matches the actual license [N]: include the license text file in %doc, if one exists [+]: spec file is written in American English [+]: spec file is legible [+]: sources match upstream: both have md5sum b49d98e33da4c2c2534fff6badc2013c [+]: package builds into binary rpm on at least one primary arch (x86_64) [N]: appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+]: all build dependencies listed in BuildRequires [+]: proper locale handling [N]: invoke ldconfig if libraries are installed [+]: no bundled copies of system libraries [N]: no relocatable packages [+]: package owns all directories that it creates [+]: no duplicate entries in %files [+]: proper permissions on files [+]: consistent use of macros [+]: code or permissible content [N]: large documentation goes in a -doc subpackage [+]: no runtime dependencies in %doc [N]: header files in -devel [N]: static libraries in -static [N]: .so files in -devel [N]: -devel requires the main package [+]: no libtool archives [N]: GUI applications install a .desktop file [+]: package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+]: UTF-8 filenames SHOULD: [=]: if not license text file, packager should query upstream [N]: description and summary contain available translations [+]: package builds in mock (tested with fedora-rawhide-i386) [+]: package builds on all supported arches [=]: package functions as described (minimal testing only, as I have only Fedora linux disks) [+]: sane scriptlets [N]: subpackages require the main package [N]: placement of pkgconfig files [+]: package dependencies instead of file dependencies [=]: man pages for binaries: there are none -- 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