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: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |needinfo?(twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx) ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-23 06:20 EST ------- - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - Spec file matches base package name. - Spec has consistant macro usage. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - License is "distributable", already discussed above - License field in spec matches - Spec is legible, in American English - Sources match upstream, sha1sum: a3dafe4b55206dcf19a8b4c67252628c2ad3fab4 symlinks-1.2.tar.gz - No BuildRequires - No locales/find_lang - Package is not relocatable - Permissions are sane [*] - 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 not needed/used (no %doc files at all) - no headers/static/.pc/.la libs - no need for ldconfig or scriptlets - not a GUI - Package builds fine in mock/devel/x86_64 - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - Package owns all files it creates; it does not create any directories - rpmlint output: Source RPM: W: symlinks invalid-license distributable - discussed above W: symlinks setup-not-quiet - please consider using setup -q Binary RPM: E: symlinks no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install that;s a MUSTFIX: Package lacks cleaning the buildroot in the %install section rpmlint of symlinks: W: symlinks invalid-license distributable - see above SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK for devel/x86_64 and i386 - Should build on all supported archs - tested on x86_64 and i386, OK - Should function as described - OK - Should have sane scriptlets - OK (no scriptlets) - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - not needed - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) - OK (none) Summary: mostly OK, with one MUSTFIX and a couple of cosmetic fixes: cosmetic: - please consider using the newer preferred value in %files, (-,root,root,-) - please add -q to setup in order to silence it - it would be nice to add usage of smp_flags to make (not that it matters for a 5K source, but the rules are the rules) MUSTFIX - %install should contain rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Please fix the above and the package is APPROVED -- 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