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: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439117 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-04 21:41 EST ------- Builds fine. rpmlint says: preupgrade.src: W: strange-permission preupgrade.spec 0600 which is a little weird but isn't a blocker. (If it were 666, that would be a problem.) Is there no URL where the source can be downloaded? Where does the tarball come from? BuildRoot should be one of the values from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot or at minimum should include %{release} in addition to what's there. You can shorten BuildArchitectures: as BuildArch: if you like to save typing. (I only mention it because vim highlights it oddly; the 'itectures' is a different color.) You can remove the tests that ensure the buildroot isn't '/'; rpmbuild does that for you. I was under the impression that Red Hat-developed code was GPLv2 only. Not really my business as the License: tag matches the source code, but I figured I'd ask. I notice you don't use the dist tag. Your choice, of course; I assume you know how to deal with its absence. ? can't check that the sources match upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. X build root is not OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(preupgrade) = 0.9-1 preupgrade = 0.9-1 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(preupgrade) = 0.9-1 python >= 2.1 python(abi) = 2.5 rpm >= 0:4.1.1 rpm-python usermode yum >= 3.2.8 yum-metadata-parser * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I installed this on a rawhide box and it ran well enough, although it doesn't really do much in that case. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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