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-kernel-headers - Kernel headers for Cross Compiling to arm-gp2x-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242203 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-27 08:02 EST ------- + rpmlint output OK: + SRPM has empty output. + main package has these: W: arm-gp2x-linux-kernel-headers devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/arm-gp2x-linux/include/linux/list.h (and many more like this) which is OK because this is a -headers package :-) and this: W: arm-gp2x-linux-kernel-headers 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 + nothing to build, so RPM_OPT_FLAGS are irrelevant + no debuginfo package because this is noarch and nothing is compiled + no static libraries nor .la files + no duplicated system libraries + no rpaths as there are no binaries + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + _smp_mflags irrelevant because nothing is compiled + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines ! This package is missing a copy of the GPL (as COPYING) + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + source matches upstream: MD5SUM: eae2f562afe224ad50f65a6acfb4252c SHA1SUM: e72c9b260995b269c9fb9248ed468c18fb01f3fd + builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no missing BR (none needed) + no translations, 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 + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + %doc files not required at runtime + this is a -headers package, so it's normal that it contains header files ;-) + 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 (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install (same nitpick about mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as for arm-gp2x-linux-binutils) + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: ! license (the Linux kernel COPYING, not LICENSE which just refers to it) not included upstream. Upstream being dead, it's unlikely they'll ever add it, so I'd suggest adding it yourself. + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream * Skipping mock test. * Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386. This is noarch anyway. + package functions as described (includes the headers it's supposed to provide) + 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 A copy of the Linux kernel COPYING (GPL v2 with the "v2 only" annotation at the top) SHOULD be included. As this is only a SHOULD item, this package is 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