[Bug 319831] Review Request: unrar - RAR archive extractor

[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: Review Request: unrar - RAR archive extractor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319831


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-10-05 16:35 EST -------
Weird; this package builds fine in mock but when I tried to build it on a
rawhide machine outside of mock it failed:

+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /tmp/unrar-0.0.1
extracting debug info from
/var/tmp/unrar-0.0.1-1.20070515cvs.fc8-root-tibbs/usr/bin/unrar
Only dest dir longer than base dir not supported
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28856 (%install)

I've no idea what's up there; perhaps something's gone wrong with that machine.
 It builds OK on an FC5 machine I have around.

You should beware that livna already has a package named "unrar", and I would
urge you to at least let them know that you plan to add a package with the same
name.  It has a much higher version number so I expect there to be some level of
user confusion.

It seems to me that because bundling libraries is generally a bad thing, it
would make more sense if the "UniquE RAR Library" were packaged separately and
this package just depended on it.  Perhaps that will happen in the future.


* source files match upstream:
   08426f7eafda45cdea6e3928c232c3fc9f81fb5c754996acdfac9d0ece2bf439  
   unrar-free_0.0.1+cvs20070515.orig.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I tried it on a handy rar file 
   and it seems to work fine.
* 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 small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.