Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-08 16:07 EST ------- OK, first rpmlint. Just one complaint, which is a blocker: Looks like there's a missing changelog entry for 1.4: W: sos incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-3 1.4-1.fc8 Some other issues: I'm prepared to accept that a real tarball will make it somewhere public at some point. Until then, could you include a couple of lines of comment indicating how you check out the source that's in the tarball? You need to make sure a copy of the license text is included in the package. Of course there's the aforementioned python-devel dependency issue. I'm not sure why you have the manual dependency on python. rpm will sort that out for you and you'll have an automatic dependency like "python(abi) = 2.5". Really, these are pretty minor issues and should be easily fixed up. Review: ? Can't check that source files match upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text not included in package. * latest version is being packaged (I suppose; it's an SVN checkout) X BuildRequires are proper (python-devel is needed). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has a valid complaint. X final provides and requires are sane: sos = 1.4-1.fc8 = /usr/bin/env X python >= 0:2.3 python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I installed it on a rawhide machine and it seemed to run OK. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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