[Bug 226437] Merge Review: strace

[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: strace


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226437


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |roland at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-18 00:27 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
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b  strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2
ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b  strace-4.5.15.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 - 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.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

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

Issues:

1. Might consider adding the COPYRIGHT file as a %doc.
Additionally: Changelog CREDITS NEWS PORTING TODO
might also be nice to have as doc files.

2. Please use the approved buildroot:
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

3. If this package can avoid it, please don't use '%makeinstall'.
Instead use 'make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install' instead.
See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall

4. Our pal rpmlint says:

a)
W: strace summary-ended-with-dot Tracks and displays system calls associated
with a running process.

Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary.

b)
W: strace macro-in-%changelog patch

Suggest: change the "%patch" in the changelog to "%%patch" to make sure rpm
doesn't expand it as a macro.

5. This package doesn't seem to compile under mock for i386/x86_64 in devel.

The build ends in:

net.c: In function 'printsock':
net.c:957: error: field 'nl' has incomplete type
make[1]: *** [net.o] Error 1

Can you duplicate this problem there?
I ran the above checks against the fc6 version for now, but once it
builds I will want to make a recheck for devel.

6. Only 3 outstanding bugs, and none of them seem directly related to
packaging. You might want to take a look at them and see if any of them
can be addressed while you are making the above changes.

7. Why the strace64_arches sections? It seems to contain ppc64, but
I don't think thats a platform fedora currently builds for.

8. Minor: might add '%{?_smp_mflags}' to the make line to support
faster builds on multi cpu machines.

9. Is there a reason to not ship the 'strace-graph' binary?

-- 
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.