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: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234749 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-27 07:14 EST ------- + rpmlint output OK: + SRPM and -debuginfo have empty output. + main package has this: W: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-gp2x-linux which is OK for a cross-toolchain package + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: + License GPL OK, matches actual license + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS (with the cross-toolchain exception for %{_prefix}/%{target}) + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires (none needed), BuildRequires (likewise), Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters + relevant documentation is included + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used + debuginfo package is valid + no static libraries nor .la files + no duplicated system libraries (libiberty is always static, bfd is target-specific, so neither of those can be shared with the native version) + no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the executables) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + _smp_mflags used + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines + COPYING included as %doc + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible (very clear actually, I don't know why everyone was scared away ;-) ) + source matches upstream: MD5SUM: 6a9d529efb285071dad10e1f3d2b2967 SHA1SUM: 5c80fd5657da47efc16a63fdd93ef7395319fbbf + builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no missing BR (none needed) + translations are disabled (because they'd conflict with the native versions), so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + no shared libraries, so no ldconfig calls needed + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions set properly + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible (%configure not used for several reasons, including it playing jokes with --target and upstream recommending building outside the source directory) + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + %doc files not required at runtime + all header files in -devel + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + no shared libraries, so .so symlink guidelines don't apply + no -devel package, so the guideline to require the main package in it doesn't apply + no .la files + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install (Nitpick: But I recommend a: mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after the: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to prevent a potential symlink attack as pointed out by the OpenSUSE folks. Sure, building outside of mock is not recommended, but this doesn't mean people doing it and not redefining %{_tmpdir} deserve to get 0wn3d by the first script kiddie with a shell account on the machine.) + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream * Skipping mock test. * Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386. + package functions as described (tested arm-gp2x-linux-as and arm-gp2x-linux-objdump on this trivial source: add r1,r1,r1 add r1,r1,r1) + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies APPROVED -- 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