[Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Feb 4 18:24:39 UTC 2007


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: zsh


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813


kevin at tummy.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-04 13:24 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 (BSD)
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:
2cefebf742c190cbc611baded825db64  zsh-4.2.6.tar.bz2
2cefebf742c190cbc611baded825db64  zsh-4.2.6.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
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 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
See below - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version
4 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Should use the correct default build root.

2. rpmlint says:

rpmlint on ./zsh-4.2.6-3.fc7.x86_64.rpm
E: zsh explicit-lib-dependency libcap

Why isn't that getting picked up by rpm? 

E: zsh standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/skel

Don't own that dir... filesystem already has it. 

E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-help
"/usr/local/bin/zsh"
E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmail
"/usr/local/bin/zsh"
E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalc
"/usr/local/bin/zsh"

Perhaps use a sed to change that to remove the local?
E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-help 0644
E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmail 0644
E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zkbd 0644
E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalc 0644
E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/harden 0644

Might need to be 755?

W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.zshrc

Ignore.

W: zsh dangerous-command-in-%postun cp
E: zsh use-tmp-in-%postun

Might be worth looking at a better way to do that...but not sure
off hand what it would be.

rpmlint on ./zsh-4.2.6-3.fc7.src.rpm
W: zsh prereq-use fileutils grep /sbin/install-info
W: zsh make-check-outside-check-section   ZTST_verbose=0 make test

You could move that to a '%check' section...

E: zsh use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
W: zsh macro-in-%changelog version
W: zsh macro-in-%changelog version

Should be %% in changelog for macros.

W: zsh mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 74, tab: line 83)

Use spaces or tabs only?

W: zsh patch-not-applied Patch1: zsh-4.0.6-make-test-fail.patch

Perhaps remove the unneeded patches?

3. 4.3.2 is out, might be worth moving to? They have apparently been working
on multibyte support. Might also address this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183557


-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list