https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136972 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dan@xxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: dcfd088f0560087b8901b97154d44f693a0998e3 0.1.3.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, with correct scriptlet OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - rpmlint complains a bit, it's acceptable paflib.ppc64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaf-ebb.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.3 paflib.ppc64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaf-dsc.so.0.0.1 _exit@GLIBC_2.3 -> advice from running "rpmlint -i paflib-0.1.3-4.fc21.ppc64.rpm" This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. paflib-devel.ppc64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib -> only the devel symlinks are there, OK The package is APPROVED. Raji, please continue with step 8 in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process (the SCM admin request). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review