[Bug 521319] Review Request: virt-v2v - Convert a virtual machine to run on KVM

[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=521319


Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>  2009-09-07 11:20:15 EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines

Reporter doesn't think the Perl libraries are independently
useful, so they don't need to go in a separate package
and we don't need to follow the Perl naming guidelines
for that too closely.

+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines

(See above about Perl packaging guidelines, although the
package is broadly correct even for them).

+ 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
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1660335

n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies

Koji build proves this.

+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*

Although commented out at the moment, however this is
correct for this package.

n/a 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ 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
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a 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:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
+ review should test the package functions as described
n/a 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

========== APPROVED by rjones ==========

The only thing to do is to modify the spec file as in
comment 2.

-- 
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.