https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559786 --- Comment #6 from Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Trimmed fedora-review output below, just some comments on the interesting stuff Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: libvirt-dbus-debugsource: .... Seems like a fedora-review error, not knowing about debugsource maybe - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/crobinso/libvirt- dbus/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I didn't confirm this, but maybe you used a manual 'make dist' archive and not the published one? - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Another fedora-review issue, BR gcc is correct for latest fedora ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/system- services, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /etc/polkit-1/rules.d, /usr/share/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces, /etc/polkit-1 These are dbus and polkit owned dirs. Nothing else owns them on my system. Maybe Requires: dbus and Requires: polkit make this go away but I don't think it's interesting [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Add one :) ===== SHOULD items ===== [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define glib2_version 2.44.0, %define libvirt_version 1.2.8, %define libvirt_glib_version 0.0.7, %define system_user libvirtdbus Needs fixing [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. I think there's also a %make_build macro that does this but I haven't used it. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). I looked them over, nothing interesting IMO After those minor tweaks I'll re-review, should be good. I can sponsor as well -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
