[Bug 491886] Review Request: xa - 6502/65816 cross-assembler

Mon Apr 13 13:03:50 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491886

Till Maas <opensource at till.name> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |opensource at till.name
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name>  2009-04-13 09:03:50 EDT ---
[OK] rpmlint output: silent
[OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format

[OK] license allowed: GPLv2
[OK] license matches shortname in License: tag
[OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: COPYING

[OK] package is code or permissive content:

{NOT OK} patches sent to upstream and commented
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080506

[OK] Source0 is a working URL
{N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
<OK> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}

[OK] Source0 matches Upstream:
edd15aa8674fb86225faf34e56d5cab2  xa-2.3.5.tar.gz

[OK] Package builds on all platforms:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1293948
[N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented:
[N/A] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds)
(OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin 

[N/A] %find_lang used for locales

[N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig
[N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage
[N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig
(N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel
[N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included

[N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop
[N/A] Follows desktop entry spec
[N/A] Valid .desktop Name
[N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName
[N/A] Valid .desktop Categories

[N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
[N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

[OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)

[OK] Owns all created directories
[OK] no duplicates in %files
[OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
[OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages
[OK] included filenames are in UTF-8

[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 
[OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 

[OK] Consistent macro usage

[N/A] large documentation is -doc subpackage
[OK] %doc does not affect runtime

{GOOD ENOUGH} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries
The tarball contains these binaries, which seem not to be shipped or used in
the build:
o65 executable, version 0, 6502, 16 bit, byte reloc, alignment 1
loader/ex2
loader/example2

{OK} well known BuildRoot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

{OK} PreReq not used
{OK} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured
{OK} Useful debuginfo generated
{OK} no duplication of system libraries
{OK} no rpath
{NOT OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
The INSTALL="install -p" has to move to the make invocation in %install

{OK} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
{OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used
{OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and
%{buildroot} on %install and %clean)
{OK} no Conflicts
{OK} nothing installed in /srv
{OK} Changelog in allowed format
{OK} does not use Scriptlets
<N/A> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
<OK> Sane Provides: and Requires:

{OK} Follows Naming Guidelines

A comment about the getline patch is missing and the 'INSTALL="install -p"' has
to be moved. These are only minor issues, please fix them before you import
them.

Btw. the name of the binary "xa" may be too generic, please consider to get
upstream to rename it to a longer name, e.g. xa65, which is debian's package
name.

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.