[Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm

[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: nasm


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu           |pmachata at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-03 15:08 EST -------
Some rpmlint complaints:
   E: nasm non-utf8-spec-file nasm.spec
   E: nasm-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog
   E: nasm-doc tag-not-utf8 %changelog
   E: nasm tag-not-utf8 %changelog
   E: nasm-rdoff tag-not-utf8 %changelog
   E: nasm tag-not-utf8 %changelog
These are all due to Trond's name in the changelog; it would probably be
best to run the entire changelog through iconv to get rid of these.

   W: nasm-doc summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for NASM.
   W: nasm summary-ended-with-dot A portable x86 assembler which uses Intel-like syntax.
   W: nasm-rdoff summary-ended-with-dot Tools for the RDOFF binary format, sometimes used with NASM.
   W: nasm summary-ended-with-dot A portable x86 assembler which uses Intel-like syntax.
Trivial to clean these up.

   W: nasm prereq-use /sbin/install-info
Use this instead:
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info

   W: nasm setup-not-quiet
Not a big deal, but you can pass "-q" on the %setup line to quiet it.

   W: nasm patch-not-applied Patch0: nasm-0.98-boguself2.patch
If this patch isn't needed, it should probably just be removed.

   W: nasm-rdoff no-documentation
This is OK.

The only other issue I see is the BuildRoot:.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   7865f74acac6b7dccb58eda9164a86da40968eea8aa650926594e0083eaaed77
   nasm-0.98.39.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
X build root is not correct; should be:
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  Whether this is absolutely mandatory depends on a decision by FESCo, which
  should happen over the weekend.
* license field matches the actual license.
*  license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  nasm-0.98.39-4.fc7.i386.rpm
   nasm = 0.98.39-4.fc7
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/install-info
  (other packages have only basic dependencies)
O %check is not present; there does seem to be something resembling a test
    suite in the source, but I'm not sure if it's feasible to run it at build
    time.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* 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 in a -doc subpackage.
* %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.