Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226377 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-10-07 15:33 EST ------- Sorry for the delay on getting back to this... OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License (GPLv2+) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 15faa7ebd9791ade1a2f8181821ac259 rpm-4.4.2.2.tar.gz 15faa7ebd9791ade1a2f8181821ac259 rpm-4.4.2.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 96 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Due to the murky pile of licenses, perhaps we could get spot and/or fedora-legal-list to review things to make sure all is well? 2. Could you put in a full URL for the upstream Source? http://rpm.org/releases/rpm-4.4.x/rpm-4.4.2.2.tar.gz ? 3. Just out of curiosity, is popt going to get split out upstream as well? 4. Another idle thought: should /usr/src/redhat be changed? /usr/src/fedora? /usr/src/rpm? 5. Do we still need to ship static libs? 6. rpmlint says: First, there are 264 lines of 'non-standard-uid' or 'non-standard-gid' These can all be ignored in this case. Removing those results in just: a) rpm-apidocs.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/rpm-apidocs-4.4.2.2/apidocs/html/build_8c-source.html Suggest: run iconv on it? b) rpm-devel.i386: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exceptions rpm.i386: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /var/lib/rpm rpm.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm rpm.i386: W: percent-in-%post rpm-libs.i386: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exceptions rpm-libs.i386: W: no-documentation rpm-python.i386: W: no-documentation rpm.src:169: E: configure-without-libdir-spec rpm.src: W: strange-permission find-debuginfo.sh 0755 Suggest: Ignore. I'd just like to thank you for all the cleanup work you have done on this package. This spec is a vast amount better than the old one. Great work! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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