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: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx |pmachata@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 15:08 EST ------- Some rpmlint complaints: E: nasm non-utf8-spec-file nasm.spec E: nasm-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm-doc tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm-rdoff tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm tag-not-utf8 %changelog These are all due to Trond's name in the changelog; it would probably be best to run the entire changelog through iconv to get rid of these. W: nasm-doc summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for NASM. W: nasm summary-ended-with-dot A portable x86 assembler which uses Intel-like syntax. W: nasm-rdoff summary-ended-with-dot Tools for the RDOFF binary format, sometimes used with NASM. W: nasm summary-ended-with-dot A portable x86 assembler which uses Intel-like syntax. Trivial to clean these up. W: nasm prereq-use /sbin/install-info Use this instead: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info W: nasm setup-not-quiet Not a big deal, but you can pass "-q" on the %setup line to quiet it. W: nasm patch-not-applied Patch0: nasm-0.98-boguself2.patch If this patch isn't needed, it should probably just be removed. W: nasm-rdoff no-documentation This is OK. The only other issue I see is the BuildRoot:. Review: * source files match upstream: 7865f74acac6b7dccb58eda9164a86da40968eea8aa650926594e0083eaaed77 nasm-0.98.39.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct; should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Whether this is absolutely mandatory depends on a decision by FESCo, which should happen over the weekend. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: nasm-0.98.39-4.fc7.i386.rpm nasm = 0.98.39-4.fc7 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info (other packages have only basic dependencies) O %check is not present; there does seem to be something resembling a test suite in the source, but I'm not sure if it's feasible to run it at build time. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is in a -doc subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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