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=225660 manuel wolfshant <wo...@nobugconsulting.ro> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant <wo...@nobugconsulting.ro> 2009-01-09 22:27:09 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328610) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328610) revised spec according to fedora guidelines I've taken a look at the current version (http://people.redhat.com/anderson/crash-4.0-7.6.src.rpm) and did a local mock rebuild. I am attaching a slightly revised spec which fixes part of the problems. The major issues (I have not tried to fix any of these because I am not familiar with the requirements of this special package) are that 1. the package uses it's own versions of several utilities/libs (at least gdb and readline) which contradicts the guidelines. However, according to http://people.redhat.com/anderson/crash_whitepaper/ this is intended. 2.the package builds a static binary. Once again, this is intended 3.fedora compile flags are completely ignored. This also seems to be intended, each of the libraries is built with a different set of flags. Easily fixable stuff (not done): - SMP_FLAGS are not used (I did not know if it's OK to use them ) - the source files (included in -debuginfo) have the exec bit set, which makes rpmlint unhappy - license seems to be GPLv2+. A lot of files are GPL+, some are GPLv2+, some have no license at all. A cleanup of those would be nice Other problems (fixed) - usage of forbidden tags (packager, vendor) or incorrect values (buildroot, source0) - some aesthetic warnings from rpmlint - missing license file from the binary rpm - there was no changelog. I have added one but it should be properly populated - timestamps (for docs/man) were not preserved - defattr was missing in %files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
