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: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin@xxxxxxxxx |pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 18:51 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 OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - 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. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 15 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Is there no upstream repo for this package? Perhaps you could add it to 'hosted.fedoraproject.org' so it has some upstream presense? Also upstream for radeontool and vbetool links would be nice. 2. Why is pkgconfig BuildRequires there? 3. Should there be a Requires: pam? 4. Our rpmlint friend says: rpmlint on pm-utils-0.19.1-6.fc7.src.rpm W: pm-utils no-url-tag Would be nice to have upstream. W: pm-utils strange-permission 60sysfont.hook 0755 W: pm-utils strange-permission 65sound.hook 0755 I think thats ok. W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes vbetool W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-provides vbetool W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes radeontool Would be very nice to provides versions on these if they are split out later. rpmlint on pm-utils-0.19.1-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: pm-utils no-url-tag W: pm-utils symlink-should-be-relative /etc/sysconfig/power-management /etc/pm/config Should make a relative symlink there. E: pm-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pm/config E: pm-utils script-without-shebang /etc/pm/config Should be mode 644 W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-hibernate W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-hibernate W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-powersave W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-powersave I think these can't be avoided, but should perhaps be config(noreplace). W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pm/hooks/49bluetooth E: pm-utils non-executable-script /etc/pm/hooks/49bluetooth 0644 Should remove the #!/bin/bash there. W: pm-utils dangerous-command-in-%pre cp What are you trying to do in that pre? It looks odd. 5. Why is there a Conflicts: bluez-utils < 2.25-6 ? Shouldn't you just require the newer one? 6. Should radeontool and vbetool be split out? 7. Should use smp_mflags? 8. Should check the 15 outstanding bugs. -- 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