[Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs

[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: ncpfs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-04 10:07 EST -------
Here's the full review; fixing the above issues and the buildroot should be all
that's necessary.

* source files match upstream:
   2837046046bcdb46d77a80c1d17dbfd15e878700e879edab4cda9f080e0337f9
   ncpfs-2.2.6.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O dist tag is not present (not required)
X build root is not correct; should be
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* 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.
* %makeinstall is not used.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   /sbin/ldconfig
   ipxutils
   libncp.so.2.3
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4)
  =
   libncp.so.2.3
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.MPILIB)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1)
   libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4)
   ncpfs = 2.2.6-6
  (ipxutils provides only ipxutils = 2.2.6-6)

* %check is present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig called as necessary.
X unversioned .so files should be in -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets present are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
X headers present and should be in -devel package.
* 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.