[Bug 511944] Review Request: tabled - distributed data storage cloud service

[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=511944


Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-07-19 07:35:41 EDT ---

A couple of things. The main one is the documentation on how to recreate the
source file. Also the description could be fleshed out a little the one used in
the review request is quite good. I couldn't build it in koji due to dep on
chunkd.

+ rpmlint output

rpmlint tabled-0.3-0.1.g2783d260.fc10.src.rpm tabled.spec 
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
? upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  needs to update to the revision control packaging guidelines
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
n/a package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  not tested in koji as it requires chunkd (should be a dep in the review bug)
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+
does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
n/a reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

-- 
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.