[Bug 225288] Merge Review: at

[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: at


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288


mastahnke at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mastahnke at gmail.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |




------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com  2007-02-14 01:37 EST -------
Template I am using for review -- thanks KevinFenzi

 - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
 - Spec file matches base package name.
 - Spec has consistant macro usage.
 - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
 - License
 - License field in spec matches
 - License file included in package
 - Spec in American English
 - Spec is legible.
 - Sources match upstream md5sum:

 - Package needs ExcludeArch
 - BuildRequires correct
 - Spec handles locales/find_lang
 - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
 - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
 - Package has a correct %clean section.
 - Package has correct buildroot
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 - Package is code or permissible content.
 - Doc subpackage needed/used.
 - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

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

 - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
 - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
 - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
 - Package owns all the directories it creates.
 - 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. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

  1 License file included in package -- License not included
  2 Upstream source and package source  do NOT match.
[builder at rawhide SPECS]$ wget
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.10.tar.gz
--00:12:28--  http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.10.tar.gz
Resolving ftp.debian.org... 128.101.240.212
Connecting to ftp.debian.org|128.101.240.212|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 99179 (97K) [application/x-tar]
Saving to: `at_3.1.10.tar.gz'

100%[=======================================>] 99,179       306K/s   in 0.3s

00:12:28 (306 KB/s) - `at_3.1.10.tar.gz' saved [99179/99179]
[builder at rawhide SOURCES]$ md5sum at-3.1.10.tar.gz
a020a2ec32e1d629c0eef91e5728efad  at-3.1.10.tar.gz
[builder at rawhide SOURCES]$ md5sum ../SPECS/at_3.1.10.tar.gz
6e5857e23b3c32ea6995fb7f8989987e  ../SPECS/at_3.1.10.tar.gz
 3 BuildRequires correct  -- Uses Legacy PreReq and BuildReq should be fixed
accoridng to package guidelines.
 4 Should /etc/at.deny have a noreplace option?
 5 Package has correct buildroot of 
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  BuildRoot is not the normal string:
      current package has: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
 6 Current package does not build on rawhide fc7 -- at-3.1.10-7  (looks like a
pam patch error)
 7 Uses %makeinstall macro -- see package guidelines for why this is not recommended
 8 Spec file is readable, but has LOTS of commented out older patches.  Do they
still need to be there?
 9 rpmlint not run yet, as package does not build in rawhide

-- 
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.