[Bug 225683] Merge Review: dev86

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225683





--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-02-18 05:48:01 EDT ---
Notes:

* "BuildRequires: gawk" is redundant (gawk is in Exceptions list
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ). Not an
issue, though.

* Looks like this package disallows parallel builds. You should add note about
it.

* It's a good idea to add notes about patch status - upstreamed (with bz# or
with maillist's link), specific for fedora and therefore shouldn't be
upstreamed, etc

* What the purpose of expression at line 16? 

Other things (except this sorrow situation with RPM_OPT_FLAGS, described above)
looks sane. So this is a formal review:

- rpmlint is not silent - see output (except numerous messages about
devel-file-in-non-devel-package, which may be safely ignored, and
binaryinfo-readelf-failed due to my powerpc arch):

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/dev86-*|grep -v
devel-file-in-non-devel-package | grep -v binaryinfo-readelf-failed
dev86.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/bcc/include/math.h
dev86.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/bcc/include/linux/ioctl.h
dev86.ppc: W: obsolete-not-provided bin86
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 105 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/dev86-0.16.17-12.fc10.src.rpm 
dev86.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bin86
dev86.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 44)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$

I think that these messages are safe to ignore too.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

- File, containing the text of the license(s), MUST be included in %doc. 

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to handle locales.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package doesn't contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ No large documentation files.
+ All files, that the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of
the application.

+/- Header files must be in a -devel package, but I'm in doubts whether this
rule can or cannot be applied in this case. And the next one.
+/- Static libraries must be in a -static package. See note above.

+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files
+ No .la libtool archives
+ Not a GUI application
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

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