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: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249059 jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-24 11:16 EST ------- Fedora Package Review: wdaemon ------------------------------ MUST Items: * rpmlint output acceptable (post full output w/waiver notes where needed): $ rpmlint /build/RPMS/x86_64/wdaemon-*0.10-2* W: wdaemon non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/61-uinput-wacom.rules W: wdaemon non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/61-uinput-stddev.rules I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to just mark these %config(noreplace), in the event a user does go and edit them/append to them. It completely silences rpmlint if we go that route, and I don't see any real reason not to just do it. * Meets Package Naming Guidelines: PASS * spec file name matches %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec (nb: there are a few exceptions): PASS * The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines: PASS * open-source compatible license and meets fedora legal reqs: PASS * License field in spec matches actual license: PASS * If source includes text of license(s) in its own file, that file must be in %doc: PASS * spec file legible and in American English: PASS * sources used match the upstream source, as provided in spec URL. Verify with md5sum (if no upstream URL, source creation method must be documented and can be verified using diff): PASS $ md5sum wdaemon-0.10.tar.bz2* 9c90cefbe4ae7d6c79ded408f9a435a7 wdaemon-0.10.tar.bz2 9c90cefbe4ae7d6c79ded408f9a435a7 wdaemon-0.10.tar.bz2.1 * produces binary rpms on at least one arch: PASS (f7/x86_64) * If ExcludeArch used, must be documented why (and a bug filed against ExArch tracker once approved): NEEDS WORK Generally, we're to assume the package will build on any architecture, and only exclude it from building on a certain arch if there's a good reason to do so. ExclusiveArch is really frowned upon, unless its a package that really only makes sense on a very limited set or arches. * BuildRequires are sane: PASS * locales, if necessary, handled properly with %find_lang: N/A * if package contains shared libs, calls ldconfig in %post/postun: N/A * if package is relocatable, must justify: N/A * package owns all directories it creates: PASS * no duplicates in %files: PASS * Permissions on %files sane: PASS -- though I might suggest some further updates to the Makefile to use 'install -mXXXX' to install the binaries and init script, rather than having to use %attr in the %files section. * %clean includes rm -rf %{buildroot}/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT: PASS * macros used consistently: PASS * package contains code, or permissable content: PASS * Large/lots of docs, if present, should go in a -doc subpackage: N/A * files in %doc aren't required for package to work: PASS * Header files in -devel package: N/A * Static libs in -static package: N/A * package Reqs: pkgconfig if pkgconfig(.pc) files present: N/A * if package has versioned libs, unversioned ones go in -devel package: N/A * if present, -devel packages must require the base package NVR (w/some rare exceptions): N/A * no libtool archives (w/some rare exceptions): PASS * if GUI app, include a %{name}.desktop file, installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section (or justify why not): N/A * don't own files or folders other package own (or justify why you must): PASS * %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot}/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT: PASS * filenames in packages must be valid UTF-8: PASS SHOULD Items (not absolutely mandatory, but highly encouraged) * If source does not include license text(s), ask upstream to include it: N/A (already included) * description and summary sections in spec should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available: N/A * package should build in mock: PASS (f7/x86_64) * package should build on all supported architectures: not tested * package should function as expected: don't have hardware to test myself * any scriptlets must be sane: N/A * subpackages other than -devel require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: N/A * pkgconfig files go in -devel pkg, unless package is a devel tool itself: N/A * If package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself: N/A ------------------------------ So for the short version, I'd add %config(noreplace) for the two udev rules files, since it looks like it only helps and use ExcludeArch: if you really need to have this not build on a specific arch. Although I suppose that could start to get equally messy (mips, arm, s390, s390x...). Okay, if you do want to stick with ExcludeArch, I suppose that's fine. One note though: do you really want to exclude ppc64? Only other minor spec cleanup I'd suggest is to remove the extraneous slashes between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{_sysconfdir} on lines 36 and 37. Package APPROVED, none of the above are blockers to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review