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=772995 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2012-02-12 08:21:02 EST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ASL 2.0 and clear like globus packages. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present rhel5 being targeted [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Epel 5 being targeted [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 present but epel5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Globus guideliens. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc18.i686.rpm globus-xioperf.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US globus-xioperf.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary globus-xioperf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint globus-xioperf-debuginfo-3.0-2.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/steve/tmp/review/772995/globus_xioperf-3.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : bb493c622f033257f2f7171e3f72abe8 MD5SUM upstream package : bb493c622f033257f2f7171e3f72abe8 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: None Comments: There is a (trivial) patch file being applied with no comment as to why. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins: -- 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