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=741706 Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-09 23:42:46 EDT --- Unfortunately I can't take this review or sponsor you, but I've done an informal review of this package and there are a few issues you may wish to fix. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Compiler flags are not honoured. The package's Makefile overrides CFLAGS inherited from the environment. You could patch it not to do that (for example, by using ?= instead of = in the Makefile) and then export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" (or similar) in the %build section. [!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Fails to build on Fedora 15 x86_64: gcc -O2 -DHAVE_openpty -c -o ttyrec.o ttyrec.c ttyrec.c:74:21: fatal error: libutil.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. make: *** [ttyrec.o] Error 1 This is fixed by adding BuildRequires: libbsd-devel. According to the package's README it can use getpt(3) on Linux, perhaps that is preferable to using openpty(3). [!] Rpmlint output: ttyrec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tty -> try, ttys, atty ttyrec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttyplay -> platy ttyrec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces ttyrec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nw -> NW, n, w ttyrec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty ttyrec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tty -> try, ttys, atty ttyrec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces ttyrec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nw -> NW, n, w ttyrec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty ttyrec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources The spelling errors can be ignored I think. The debuginfo-without-sources error is because -g is not in CFLAGS. [X] Package is not relocatable. [!] Buildroot is absent You can remove the BuildRoot tag unless you're targetting EPEL5. The rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT line in the %install section is also not necessary and can be removed. [!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: BSD The upstream web site says the package is released "under the terms of the BSD Licence" without specifying which variation of the BSD license, and there is no COPYING or LICENSE file in the tarball. Presumably they don't mean the original BSD with advertising clause. You should clarify this with upstream, and request that they add the missing license file. [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [X] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : ee74158c6c55ae16327595c70369ef83 MD5SUM upstream package: ee74158c6c55ae16327595c70369ef83 [X] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [X] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [X] Permissions on files are set properly. [!] Package has no %clean section The %clean section is not needed anymore and should be removed. [X] Package consistently uses macros. [X] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [X] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [X] Latest version is packaged. [X] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Build fails on Fedora 15 x86_64 as described above. [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. -- 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