Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-17 14:24 EST ------- For some reason this package stopped showing up on my bugzilla front page; I have no idea why. Perhaps because the status went to MODIFIED instead of ASSIGNED? Anyway, this builds fine now and as you say has only the four rpmlint unversioned-explicit-provides warnings. The thing is, these Obsoletes/Provides pairs have been in cdrtools since FC-1. The need for these in order to provide a clean upgrade path has long since passed, and they should just go away. (Current policy is to keep such Obsoletes around for a maximum of three releases.) So given that, why not just remove them entirely? Some other issues: I note you don't use %{dist}. I generally recommend it because it makes it easy to maintain one specfile across multiple releases, but ultimately it's up to you. (Not a blocker.) The build root should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) The COPYING file gets into the wodim package, but the other packages which have essentially unrelated names don't get a copy. This seems bothersome to me, but I'm not sure if it's really an issue. I can't tell what cflags are in effect at build time. I don't see anything that sets them, and given that the debuginfo package is busted I'm assuming that something's not right. Review: * source files match upstream: 03a4e80718704e79b50a285b0aac928a3820c5b3c1df028478aa68fe884b7d0d cdrkit-1.1.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. O dist tag is not present. X build root is incorrect. * 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 (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: genisoimage-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm cdrecord-mkisofs mkisofs = 9:2.01-10.1 genisoimage = 1.1.2-1 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl libz.so.1()(64bit) perl >= 4:5.8.1 perl(Cwd) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Path) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(List::Util) perl(strict) icedax-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm cdda2wav = 9:2.01-10.1 cdrecord-cdda2wav icedax = 1.1.2-1 = /bin/sh wodim-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm cdrecord = 9:2.01-10.1 dvdrecord = 0:0.1.5.1 wodim = 1.1.2-1 = libcap.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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 small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review