[Bug 705133] Review Request: btparser - Parser and analyzer for backtraces produced by GDB

[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=705133

--- Comment #1 from Jiri Moskovcak <jmoskovc@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-17 14:45:42 EDT ---
OK      source files match upstream:
 ca445ed4d8e40b75b8144dfe9bd66d3c6e0109c8  btparser-0.13.tar.xz
 ca445ed4d8e40b75b8144dfe9bd66d3c6e0109c8  btparser-local.tar.xz
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 - GPLv2+
OK     license is open source-compatible. License text included in package -
GPLv2+
OK     latest version is being packaged.
OK     BuildRequires are proper.
OK    compiler flags are appropriate.
OK      package builds in mock (F15).
OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
OK     rpmlint is silent. (just some false positives)

$ rpmlint SPECS/btparser.spec RPMS/x86_64/btparser-0.13-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
btparser.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backtraces -> backtracks,
back traces, back-traces
btparser.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backtrace ->
backtrack, back trace, back-trace
btparser.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backtraces ->
backtracks, back traces, back-traces
btparser.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbtparser.so.2.2.2
exit@xxxxxxxxxxx
-> explained in previous comment
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

OK     final provides and requires look sane.
OK     %check is present and all tests pass.
OK      shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with
proper scriptlets
BAD      owns the directories it creates.

- %{_bindir}/%{name}
+ %dir %{_bindir}/%{name}

OK      doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK      no duplicates in %files.
OK      file permissions are appropriate.
OK      correct scriptlets present.
N/A      documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK      %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

- but packaging some offline reference manual would be nice

OK      headers in -devel
OK      pkgconfig files in -devel
OK      no libtool .la droppings.

- if you fix the %dir comment then I'm fine with 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


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