[Bug 201779] Review Request: xfsdump

[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: xfsdump


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841              |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-08-30 00:29 EST -------
I tried to come up with some way to clean up the rpmlint warnings from the
debuginfo package and I'm out of ideas.  Perhaps some expert has a solution, but
in the absense of one I'm not going to let that block things.  The only thing
rpmlint has to complain about is the debuginfo package.

Some remaining issues that I've notices while doing the full review:

Don't use Distribution:.

You don't use the %dist tag in your Release:.  It's not mandatory but strongly
recommended; if you don't use it, you must be very careful to keep your versions
straight across the potentially five different releases that this package will
be built for.

Really the only blocker is the use of Distribution:; I'll leave the dist tag up
to you but remind you to take care if you do not add it, especially with your
first FC5 build after you branch as it will have the same version and won't
permit you to tag.

At this point you should go ahead and request cvsextras membership, and
fedorabugs if you want it.  I'll approve you and then you'll be able to check
in.  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#GetAFedoraAccount has
details.
 
Review:
* source files match upstream:
   4e113a39b07723bbb140d2e5c5389cfe  xfsdump_2.2.42-1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O debuginfo package has problems which aren't easily soluble.
O rpmlint has valid but unfixable complaints (-debuginfo package only)
* final provides and requires are sane:
   xfsdump = 2.2.42-1
  =
   attr >= 2.0.0
   libattr.so.1()(64bit)
   libattr.so.1(ATTR_1.0)(64bit)
   libhandle.so.1()(64bit)
   libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
   libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
   xfsprogs >= 2.6.30
* %check is not present; running upstream test suite is not reasonable.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* package is not relocatable.
* 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 -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

APPROVED, provided you remove Distribution:

-- 
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.