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: apr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225253 ------- Additional Comments From jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-30 00:31 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. ISSUE (6) - Spec has consistent macro usage. ISSUE (4) - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 814f19528d9cfc79aef188dd752e04d8 rpmbuild/SOURCES/apr-1.2.8.tar.gz 814f19528d9cfc79aef188dd752e04d8 reviews/apr/apr-1.2.8.tar.gz ISSUE (7) - Source URL should go to downloadable source. ISSUE (3) - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. ISSUE (1) - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. ISSUE (8) .a files in -static subpackage OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. ISSUE (9) - rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. ISSUE (2) - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version ISSUE (5) - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Build root should be one of the recommended build roots: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 2. The %{?dist} tag should be used in Release: 3. BuildPrereq should not be used, use BuildRequires instead 4. Conflicts: is used and should not be. Perhaps change Conflicts: to Requires: subversion >= 0.20.1-2 Requires: subversion-devel >= 0.20.1-2 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts 5. There are outstanding bugs for apr please address them. 6. In %configure it should not be necessary to set CC and CXX. If the are required to be set, use %{__cc} and %{__cxx} instead of gcc and g++ 7. Source0: should be the upstream source location. Possibly, Source0: http://www.eng.lsu.edu/mirrors/apache/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 8. .a files should be in a separate %{name}-static package or removed. 9. rpmlint output W: apr buildprereq-use autoconf, libtool, e2fsprogs-devel, python See Issue (3) -- 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