[Bug 225236] Merge Review: acl

[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: Merge Review: acl


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com             |twoerner at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-03 12:08 EST -------

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00  acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz
4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00  acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
 - final provides and requires are sane:
     (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo
=; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
      manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk
and anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

 - Should build in mock.
 - Should build on all supported archs
 - Should function as described.
 - Should have sane scriptlets.
 - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
 - Should have dist tag
 - Should package latest version
 - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. buildroot should be the standard.

2. Could add smp_mflags to build?

3. The devel package should probibly "Requires" the full %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}

4. Our good friend rpmlint says:
rpmlint on ./libacl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm
W: libacl summary-ended-with-dot Dynamic library for access control list support.

Remove the .

W: libacl no-documentation

Ignore.

rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.src.rpm
W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities.

Remove .

W: acl prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig

Ignore.

W: acl macro-in-%changelog defattr

Should be %%defattr in the changelog

rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm
W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities.

Remove .

rpmlint on ./libacl-devel-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm
W: libacl-devel no-version-dependency-on libacl 2.2.39

Should be full verion...

W: libacl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Access control list static libraries and
headers.
W: libacl-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/lib/libacl.so /lib/libacl.so

I think that could be ignored.


-- 
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.