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: elfutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225723 limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-23 12:58 EST ------- rpmlint on srpm: elfutils.src:37: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes libelf The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. elfutils.src:37: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes libelf-devel The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. I assume this is probably OK, but it'd be better to version this, on the off chance we move back to libelf. elfutils.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 287, tab: line 287) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Cosmetic, but worth fixing. elfutils.src: W: no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. Are we the upstream? If so, it needs a spot on "hosted" so se can have upstream there. rpmlint on rpms: elfutils.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided libelf If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides. elfutils.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided libelf-devel If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides. See above. elfutils-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Minor, might not be applicable. elfutils-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on elfutils elfutils-devel.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development libraries to handle compiled objects. Summary ends with a dot. elfutils-devel-static.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. elfutils-devel-static.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Static archives to handle compiled objects. Summary ends with a dot. elfutils-libelf.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. elfutils-libelf.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Library to read and write ELF files. Summary ends with a dot. elfutils-libelf-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. elfutils-libelf-devel-static.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. elfutils-libs.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. elfutils-libs.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Libraries to handle compiled objects. Summary ends with a dot. These are cosmetic also, but need fixing. elfutils-libelf-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on elfutils-libelf This is an absolute MUSTFIX unless there's a compelling reason not to. Also, license tag is GPL, should be GPLv2. Other than the above, no blockers. -- 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