[Bug 485420] Review Request: openbios - Open Source implementation of IEEE 1275-1994

[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=485420





--- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-03-03 16:57:19 EDT ---
>From my PoV it;s still look ugly - I don't think that it's easy to understand
that all these tricks with exactarch/noarch for w/o comments. In other words, I
think that this package is not legible enough. However, keeping in mind that we
really need this package in order to clean up mess with pre-built blobs in qemu
here is my 

REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent (checked on ppc):

openbios.src:137: E: files-attr-not-set
openbios.src:138: E: files-attr-not-set
openbios.src:139: E: files-attr-not-set
openbios.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 10)
openbios.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot OpenBios implementation of IEEE
1275-1994.
openbios.src: E: description-line-too-long features, Open Firmware provides an
instruction set independent device interface.
openbios-debuginfo.ppc: E: empty-debuginfo-package
openbios-ppc.noarch: W: no-documentation
openbios-ppc.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/share/openbios/openbios-ppc
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings.

+ 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. I've got only one complain
about explicit installation of docs in %install section. I't enogh just to list
them as %doc
+ 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.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is not legible enough (see messages above).
unfortunately, I don't think that this can be easily fixed, because this
situation is relatively complex (different parts of this package should be
built on different arches).

- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Unfortunately, I failed to download sources using the
following address (taken from spec-file):

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/openbios/openbios-1.0.tar.gz

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (see koji ogs above)
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.

- The package must own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately, I can't
find that sub-package owns %{_datadir}/openbios

+ A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

- Permissions on files must be set properly. See rpmlint warnings above.
+ The package has a %clean section.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
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 are valid UTF-8.

Please, fix issues, mentioned above.

-- 
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.