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=226222 Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-03 15:27:13 EDT --- Fresh review. Good: - rpmlint checks return: oprofile.spec:129: W: macro-in-comment %doc There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. oprofile.spec:198: W: macro-in-%changelog %pre Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Trivial to fix. oprofile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. oprofile.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/oprofile-0.9.7/COPYING oprofile-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/oprofile-0.9.7/daemon/liblegacy/p_module.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. Ignore, fixable upstream. oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opjitconv Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprofiled Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Fix if feasible. oprofile.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel We shouldn't remove created users or groups. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files and libraries for developing apps which will use oprofile. Summary ends with a dot. Trivial fix. oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if feasible. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C GUI for oprofile. Summary ends with a dot. Trivial to fix. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oprof -> prof, proof, o prof The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprof_start Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if feasible. oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.so oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. Should the .a be included, and should the .so files be in -devel? oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-x86_64.conf A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. Fix. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source Says GPLv2, should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files I see two, remove or move to -static, or Provide -static in -devel. - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Let me know if you'd like me to commit fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review