[Bug 190070] Review Request: par2cmdline

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: par2cmdline


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190070


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-27 10:44 EST -------
Issues:
spectool cannot fetch the upstream source; your Source: URL is wrong.  I think
it should be http://dl.sourceforge.net/parchive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz, which
I'll assume is the proper upstream.

To help those of us who won't understand why we would need this software, could
you perhaps include a quick description of a PAR2 file in %description?

Please use the recommended BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Please remove Distribution: SuSE 9.1.

I'm not sure about your Obsoletes: and Provides:, but I'll assume you have some
previous package history that requires this.  I'll ask the list for a bit of
guidance.

rpmlint complains:

E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairersourcefile.h
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairer.cpp
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/galois.h
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairersourcefile.cpp
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par1repairer.cpp

You should remove the executable bits from these files in %build; otherwise RPM
thinks they're executables and sticks them in the debuginfo package.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
X specfile is properly named but the preamble needs minor cleanup.  %prep and
below look good.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible and is included in the package as %doc.
* source files match upstream:
   1551b63e57e3c232254dc62073b723a9  par2cmdline-0.4.tar.gz
   1551b63e57e3c232254dc62073b723a9  par2cmdline-0.4.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint has a few complaints
X final requires are sane; final provides 
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* creates no non-%doc directories.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check not present; no test suite upstream.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.