[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010

Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #11 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Sorry, this totally fell of my radar... A ping would have been nice :)

REVIEW:

good:
- name ok
- parallel make
- %build ok
- %prep ok, nice python/perl provides scipt
- %install ok
- no *.la *.a
- ldconfig there
- rpmlint /home/tomspur/rpmbuild/SRPMS/genders-1.18-3.fc17.src.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/genders-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/genders-compat-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/genders-perl-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/genders-python-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libgenders-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libgenders-devel-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libgendersplusplus-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libgendersplusplus-devel-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/genders-debuginfo-1.18-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
genders.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
genders.src:113: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
--with-extension-destdir="%{buildroot}"
genders.src:128: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/genders
genders.src:201: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
libgenders.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgenders.so.0.3.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

Some bad things among them, but they must be, see above... :(

- CFLAGS respected

comments:
- Each library has it's own package, which is a bit too much. But your choice
:)
- Each package MUST have a license file, which means, it's fine, when a package
Requires an other *%{name}* package, which has a license file.
  But it's fine this way too.

NEEDSWORK:
- Why do you: ?
  mv %{buildroot}/%{_prefix}/lib/genders %{buildroot}/%{_libexecdir}/

  %{_prefix}/lib/genders is unfortunately the best, see comment #7.
- After that, please make the compat package noarch on EL6+ and Fedora. This
way, it's verified on each build, that those packages have the same content on
each arches, so multilib install is possible.

- It looks like 32bit has some problems. Logs over here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4221409

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]