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: libvirt-cim - A CIM provider for libvirt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=421871 matt_domsch@xxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |fedora-review-, | |needinfo?(danms@xxxxxxxxxx) ------- Additional Comments From matt_domsch@xxxxxxxx 2008-01-06 00:42 EST ------- Release: what's extra_release there for? BuildRoot: value acceptable, but two better choices are available. Source: misssing full URL to the file. Why explicit Requires for libxml2 and libvirt versions? README lists libvirt-0.2.3, while spec Requires libvirt >= 0.3.2. typo? somewhere? %pre needs a comment explaining what you're trying to do. It looks like the provider-register call in %pre is trying to unregister (e.g. -d is delete). It took me a while to figure it out, because you are invoking scripts that are part of its own (not yet installed) package (which fails on first install, so you hit the ||true clause). %post: don't automatically restart the service, use cond-restart. You don't want it started on initial install from kickstart, for example. $ rpmlint *.rpm libvirt-cim.src: W: strange-permission libvirt-cim.spec 0600 otherwise file permissions look ok, no other lint warnings. rpaths used, which need to be removed. Drop files in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ adding /usr/lib*/cmpi/. Remove *.so files. Review criteria: rpmlint attached, trivial spec permission fix at checkin time OK package name OK spec file name OK with changes above, should meet packaging guidelines FIX+RECHECK license LGPLv2.1+ OK license field matches OK license included in %doc OK spec is English OK spec mostly legible, modulo comments above. OK can't presently judge source matches upstream, until formal upstream tarball is released. FIX+RECHECK package compiles on at least x86_64 F9(rawhide) in mock. OK spec doesn't use locales OK ldconfig called appropriately OK package not relocatable OK package owns its directories OK no duplicate files OK defaddr line present, permissions sane OK %clean OK macros OK contains code OK no large docs no header files OK no static libs OK no pkgconfig files OK .so files present but not in a -devel package, delete them. FIX+RECHECK no .la files OK no GUI files OK directory ownership OK %install cleans first OK all filesname UTF-8 OK license included OK translated summary & description, not present. SHOULD, but OK package builds in mock on x86_64. OK package not tested. scriptlets sane, if commented. FIX+RECHECK no subpackages OK no .pc files OK no file deps OK Please fix and repost. -- 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