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: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 mastahnke@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mastahnke@xxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 01:37 EST ------- Template I am using for review -- thanks KevinFenzi - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - Spec file matches base package name. - Spec has consistant macro usage. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - License - License field in spec matches - License file included in package - Spec in American English - Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: - Package needs ExcludeArch - BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - Package owns all the directories it creates. - 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 $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - Should have dist tag - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1 License file included in package -- License not included 2 Upstream source and package source do NOT match. [builder@rawhide SPECS]$ wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.10.tar.gz --00:12:28-- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.10.tar.gz Resolving ftp.debian.org... 128.101.240.212 Connecting to ftp.debian.org|128.101.240.212|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 99179 (97K) [application/x-tar] Saving to: `at_3.1.10.tar.gz' 100%[=======================================>] 99,179 306K/s in 0.3s 00:12:28 (306 KB/s) - `at_3.1.10.tar.gz' saved [99179/99179] [builder@rawhide SOURCES]$ md5sum at-3.1.10.tar.gz a020a2ec32e1d629c0eef91e5728efad at-3.1.10.tar.gz [builder@rawhide SOURCES]$ md5sum ../SPECS/at_3.1.10.tar.gz 6e5857e23b3c32ea6995fb7f8989987e ../SPECS/at_3.1.10.tar.gz 3 BuildRequires correct -- Uses Legacy PreReq and BuildReq should be fixed accoridng to package guidelines. 4 Should /etc/at.deny have a noreplace option? 5 Package has correct buildroot of %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRoot is not the normal string: current package has: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root 6 Current package does not build on rawhide fc7 -- at-3.1.10-7 (looks like a pam patch error) 7 Uses %makeinstall macro -- see package guidelines for why this is not recommended 8 Spec file is readable, but has LOTS of commented out older patches. Do they still need to be there? 9 rpmlint not run yet, as package does not build in rawhide -- 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