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=753517 Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-10 17:28:56 EST --- This is an informal review. Although I've built rpm's for many years, I'm new to Fedora's build process. So this isn't a formal review, but maybe it will make it easier for the next reviewer. -------------- Overall Notes: -------------- You have the version as 371, which corresponds with the tarball that from upstream. The problem is that upstream calls the version 3.7.1. I would suggest you go with having the dots in the version, and perhaps have a variable for the tarball numbering. If you don't, you are going to get bitten if any but the first number get's up to 10. Example: version 3.10.1 would then be 3101, which would be higher than version 4.1.1, 411. If it was me, I'd add a variable like tarversion at the top %define tar_version 371 Then change Version: 371 to Version: 3.7.1 and Source0: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~emery/hoard/hoard-3.7.1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~emery/hoard/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{tar_version}.tar.gz and %setup -q to %setup -q -n %{name}-%{tar_version} -------------- Review MUSTS: -------------- NOTE: These are on both the spec file for release 2 and release 3 except where noted. rpmlint output - Already done Package name - OK Spec file matches base package - OK License must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines - OK License in spec must match actual license - OK License file include in %doc (If a separate file) - Not in release 2, but I see you are putting it in release 3 Spec file written in American English - OK Spec file legible - OK Tar ball matches upstream - OK Package successfully builds binary RPMs - OK Build dependancies listed - OK If shared library files - ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun - release 2 - NO, release 3 - Yes System libraries not bundled into rpm - OK No duplicate files - OK Permissions on files set correctly - OK Macro use must be consistant - OK Must contain code or permissible content - OK Large documentation files go in a -doc subpackage - Not in release 2, but I see you are putting it in release 3 Anything marked at %doc cannot affect runtime application - OK (for version 3) At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 - OK -------------- Review MUSTS: -------------- NOTE: These are on both the spec file for release 2 and release 3 except where noted. Have license texts, if not, contact Upstream - in release 3 Test that the package builds in mock - tested on release 2 Should compile and build on all supported architectures - release 2 does, haven't tested on release 3. Package should function as described - Haven't tested Scriptlets must be sane - OK -- 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