Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871204 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx Alias| |urdfdom-headers Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Rich, Review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [ankur@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/urdfdom-headers.spec urdfdom-headers-0.2.2-1.fc18.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/urdfdom-headers.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: urdfdom-headers-0.2.2.tar.bz2 urdfdom-headers.src: W: invalid-url Source0: urdfdom-headers-0.2.2.tar.bz2 urdfdom-headers.src: W: invalid-url Source0: urdfdom-headers-0.2.2.tar.bz2 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [ankur@localhost SRPMS]$ ^^ ALL OK [+] License is acceptable (...) [+] License field in spec is correct [-] License files included in package %docs if included in source package ^ Skipped for the time being [-] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [-] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream SHA256: ... Your SHA256: ... ^ Generated from hg clone. Script attached. [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [-] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [-] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [+] %doc files not required at runtime [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [+] Development files go in -devel package [-] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa ^^ Unneeded. The main package is empty [+] No .la files [-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [+] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [+] Query upstream about including license files ^ Issue filed [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) [-] Scriptlets are sane [-] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [+] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [-] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [-] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [-] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [-] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [-] Requires correct, justified where necessary [-] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [-] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [-] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [+] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [+] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [+] No static executables [-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [-] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [-] .desktop files are sane [+] Spec uses macros consistently [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [-] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [-] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [-] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [-] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [-] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [+] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [-] File ops preserve timestamps [+] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [?] Patches have appropriate commentary ^^ Please add a comment explaining the patch [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 Looks good. No blockers. A few tiny issues only. Just one query before I approve it: Since it's a header only package, should it provide a static package Rich? Package is mostly ready for approval. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YwaRFq8e61&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review