[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm

[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: rpm


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226377





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-10-07 15:33 EST -------
Sorry for the delay on getting back to this...

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License (GPLv2+)
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:
15faa7ebd9791ade1a2f8181821ac259  rpm-4.4.2.2.tar.gz
15faa7ebd9791ade1a2f8181821ac259  rpm-4.4.2.2.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.

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:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
96 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Due to the murky pile of licenses, perhaps we could get
spot and/or fedora-legal-list to review things to make sure all
is well?

2. Could you put in a full URL for the upstream Source?
http://rpm.org/releases/rpm-4.4.x/rpm-4.4.2.2.tar.gz ?

3. Just out of curiosity, is popt going to get split out
upstream as well?

4. Another idle thought: should /usr/src/redhat be changed?
/usr/src/fedora? /usr/src/rpm?

5. Do we still need to ship static libs?

6. rpmlint says:

First, there are 264 lines of 'non-standard-uid' or 'non-standard-gid'
These can all be ignored in this case.

Removing those results in just:

a)

rpm-apidocs.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/rpm-apidocs-4.4.2.2/apidocs/html/build_8c-source.html

Suggest: run iconv on it?

b)
rpm-devel.i386: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exceptions
rpm.i386: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /var/lib/rpm
rpm.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
rpm.i386: W: percent-in-%post
rpm-libs.i386: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exceptions
rpm-libs.i386: W: no-documentation
rpm-python.i386: W: no-documentation
rpm.src:169: E: configure-without-libdir-spec
rpm.src: W: strange-permission find-debuginfo.sh 0755

Suggest: Ignore.

I'd just like to thank you for all the cleanup work you have done
on this package. This spec is a vast amount better than the old one.
Great work!



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.