[Bug 502992] Review Request: erlang-erlsyslog - Syslog client facility for Erlang

[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=502992


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-06-03 22:04:00 EDT ---
Builds fine; rpmlint says:
  erlang-erlsyslog.x86_64: E: no-binary
  erlang-erlsyslog.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Both are completely wrong, unless somehow 
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/erlsyslog-0.1/ebin/erlsyslog.beam is a Martian text file
and not a binary.

Not that it really matters since you can't get rpm to show you the expanded
comments anyway, but your checkout instructions are missing a '%' near the end:
 # svn export -r %{svnver} http://erlsyslog.googlecode.com/svn/trunk {realname}

* source files match upstream (compared manually)
* 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 not included upstream.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   erlang-erlsyslog = 0.1-0.3.svn10.fc11
   erlang-erlsyslog(x86-64) = 0.1-0.3.svn10.fc11
  =
   erlang

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

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.