Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin@xxxxxxxxx |twoerner@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 12:08 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00 acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz 4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00 acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - Should have dist tag - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. buildroot should be the standard. 2. Could add smp_mflags to build? 3. The devel package should probibly "Requires" the full %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 4. Our good friend rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./libacl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm W: libacl summary-ended-with-dot Dynamic library for access control list support. Remove the . W: libacl no-documentation Ignore. rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.src.rpm W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities. Remove . W: acl prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig Ignore. W: acl macro-in-%changelog defattr Should be %%defattr in the changelog rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities. Remove . rpmlint on ./libacl-devel-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm W: libacl-devel no-version-dependency-on libacl 2.2.39 Should be full verion... W: libacl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Access control list static libraries and headers. W: libacl-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/lib/libacl.so /lib/libacl.so I think that could be ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review