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: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin@xxxxxxxxx |twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 17:18 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 (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 00bfa16d58e034e3c2aa27f390390d30 bash-3.2.tar.gz 00bfa16d58e034e3c2aa27f390390d30 bash-3.2.tar.gz.1 0e904cb46ca873fcfa65df19b024bec9 bash-doc-3.2.tar.gz 0e904cb46ca873fcfa65df19b024bec9 bash-doc-3.2.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 - 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. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 3 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Could ask upstream to include the GPL COPYING file (minor, non blocker). 2. Why the: Prefix: %{_prefix} That should probibly be removed. 3. Buildroot should be set to the standard buildroot. 4. rpmlint, our little pal says: rpmlint on ./bash-3.2-4.fc7.src.rpm W: bash summary-ended-with-dot The GNU Bourne Again shell (bash) version 3.2. Remove . at end. E: bash tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: bash non-utf8-spec-file bash.spec Perhaps run iconv on the spec file to make it utf8? W: bash redundant-prefix-tag Remove prefix. W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bash2 W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes etcskel W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bash2-doc W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bash-doc Are these still needed? W: bash make-check-outside-check-section make check Move 'make check' to a %check section. E: bash use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Should change install to use '-p' and also refer to %SOURCEN instead of SOURCE_DIR. W: bash macro-in-%changelog pre W: bash macro-in-%changelog clean Should use %% for macros in changelog entries. W: bash mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 154, tab: line 98) Pick one of spaces or tabs. E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/krand.bash E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/bcsh.sh E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/precedence E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/shprompt Should be mode 644? W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/man/man1/..1.gz W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.bash_logout E: bash postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/bash.info.gz E: bash postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/bash.info.gz W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.bashrc W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.bash_profile W: bash dangerous-command-in-%postun mv Can all be ignored. 5. Should look at the open bugs for the package. In particular this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224567 Requires(post): ncurses Might be required. -- 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