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: sysfsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226447 tmz@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx | |) ------- Additional Comments From tmz@xxxxxxxxx 2008-01-11 14:15 EST ------- Jarod, here's a review. Things look mostly sane. The few minor issues are noted below. I'll attach a patch that makes these changes. Feel free to use some or all of it, with or without attribution. ;) * source files match upstream: b3cb316c652b09ec66f93f4ea98a93a7a1001678 sysfsutils-2.1.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X license field matches the actual license. The main package license should be GPLv2 (cmd/systool.c specifies v2 and has no "or any later version clause") The libsysfs subpackage should be LGPLv2+ * license is open source-compatible. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none are needed). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (fedora-devel-x86_64,). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. (not quite, but these warnings should be okay to ignore): sysfsutils.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-2 2.1.0-1.fc9 libsysfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation * final provides and requires are sane * 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. * file permissions are appropriate. X scriptlets are properly run for libs ldconfig needs to be run for the libsysfs subpackage * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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