https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745478 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: 105e4914bc7b9cb29a5b81be51693e7567405478 v0.0.3.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK* license is open source-compatible (LGPLv2 or BSD). License text not included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/ppc64le). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage OK pkgconfig files in devel subpackage OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - the license texts should included in the source archive and then distributed with the built rpms - rpmlint output is harmless libbpf-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation libbpf-static.ppc64le: W: no-documentation libbpf.ppc64le: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Libbpf libbpf.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bpf -> bf, pf, bps libbpf.ppc64le: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.3-1 ['1:0.0.3-1.fc32', '1:0.0.3-1'] libbpf.ppc64le: W: no-documentation libbpf.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Libbpf libbpf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bpf -> bf, pf, bps 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Two nitpicks - you can drop the slash from the LIBDIR definition, the "dir" macros start with a slash - you can drop the redefinition of OBJDIR in the make_flags, actually it makes it worse when doing a local "rpmbuild" (it puts files into /home/dan/rpmbuild/BUILD which isn't cleaned up). It works well for me when the default is used. The package is APPROVED. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
