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: aboot - A bootloader which can be started from the SRM console. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=294641 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-26 13:14 EST ------- A few complaints: the manpages are executable, which rpmlint dutifully complains about: aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/e2writeboot.8.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/sdisklabel.8.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/isomarkboot.1.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/swriteboot.8.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/abootconf.8.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/netabootwrap.1.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man5/aboot.conf.5.gz aboot.alpha: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/aboot.8.gz I notice that the normal set of compiler flags aren't used. Now, this is a bootloader so I can understand why, although there are userspace programs included which perhaps should be built like any other userspace program. Given that this is for Alpha, though, I can't even be truly sure what the proper compilation flags are. This package does not meet the versioning guidelines; when 1.0 is released, it will sort lower than the current package name. The guidelines specify the proper version and release to be used as: 1.0-0.2.pre20040408 You can increment the '2' for each new revision, and when 1.0 is released you can just use "1.0-1" without worrying about any sorting issues. There's a COPYING file in the tarball, which must be included in the package. * source files match upstream: a8ae8f2bf549c1cc79ea66a0a11c8db5c0257ce0d94b97418eb1c658723b12d2 aboot-1.0_pre20040408.tar.bz2 X package does not meet versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text included in tarball but not in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. ? compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, alpha). * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have no way to test this pacakge. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are not appropriate (executable manpages) * 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. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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