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 2007-07-04 16:44 EST ------- Odd; this package has grown rpmlint issues since I looked at it last. I'm not sure how you would not be seeing any errors. Maybe you neglected to run it against both the SRPM and the built RPM. W: sos redundant-prefix-tag Please remove Prefix:. While you're at it, remove Vendor: as well. E: sos no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Somehow "rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" was removed from the %install section of the previous submission. It needs to come back. In fact, it looks like someone junked the almost-complete existing spec and started over with some new spec having , so I need to do a complete re-review. That's really disappointing; I've spent a lot if time on this already. The instructions for fetching the source must be included in the spec. The instructions that you've given in comment #23 don't work for me; I'm prompted for a password and I don't know what to enter. The summary seems to be mostly content-free; it needs to include at least a little information about what the package does. Maybe "System information gethering tools" or somesuch. The dist tag seems to have disappeared. It's not mandatory, but if not present I have to ask: are you sure you don't want it? Do you understand the requirements of multi-branch maintenance without the dist tag? Because you've switched to using the ill-advices --record option to setup.py, you're now not including any of the directories that you should be including. If you put the %python_sitelib definition back in the beginning of the spec (which you simply must do in any case, unless you want some complicated hack that parses the INSTALLED_FILES file to figure out where the directories are), then a %files section consisting simply of: %{_sbindir}/sosreport %{python_sitelib}/sos/ %{_mandir}/man1/sosreport.1* %doc LICENSE README TODO should work fine. Review: ? can't compare source files against upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X summary is nondescriptive. * description is OK. ? dist tag is not present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: sos = 1.6-3 = /usr/bin/env python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I tested it before and I'll make the assumption that it still works OK. X does not own most of 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