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-util https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225254 ------- Additional Comments From jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-30 01:00 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines Ok - Spec file matches base package name. OK - 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: a2e2e54d65e9eae961f7171335cf2550 rpmbuild/SOURCES/apr-util-1.2.8.tar.gz a2e2e54d65e9eae961f7171335cf2550 reviews/apr-util/apr-util-1.2.8.tar.gz ISSUE (6) - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang 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. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ISSUE (7) - .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 (5) - rpmlint output. OK - Should build in mock. 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 (3) - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Build root is not one of the recommended options %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 2. It is recommended to use %{?dist} in Release: 3. There is an outstanding bug for apr-util, but it may not apply to Fedora. 4. Conflicts: should not be used. Perhaps Requires: subversion >= 0.20.1-2 instead? 5 rpmlint output W: apr-util invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 W: apr-util-debuginfo invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 W: apr-util-devel invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 W: apr-util-mysql invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 W: apr-util-pgsql invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 probably false positives E: apr-util use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR in %prep use cp ${SOURCE1} dbd instead of cp $RPM_SOURCE_DIR/apr_dbd_mysql.c dbd W: apr-util-devel no-documentation W: apr-util-mysql no-documentation W: apr-util-pgsql no-documentation Is there any documentation to include? 6. Build Requires doxygen is in BuildRequires but it does not seem to be used in the build process. Is a step missing in the build process to create the documentation and then put %doc for each of the -devel -mysql and -pgsql sub packages ? 7. .la files exist and must be removed -- 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