https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835275
Garrett Holmstrom <gho...@fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Garrett Holmstrom <gho...@fedoraproject.org> ---
Its tests don't seem to pass on F16; I hope that's okay. Everything else looks
fine to me. Just don't forget to fix the License field if it turns out to be
LGPLv2 after all.
Enjoy!
== Review of shflags-1.0.3-2 ==
Mandatory review guidelines:
ok - rpmlint output:
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ksh -> ks, sh, ssh
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh,
ash
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getopt -> get opt,
get-opt, treetop
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google,
goggle, googly
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gflags -> flags,
gulags, g flags
shflags.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/shflags-1.0.3/doc/LICENSE.shunit2
shflags.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/shflags-1.0.3/doc/LGPL-2.1
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ksh -> ks, sh, ssh
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getopt -> get opt,
get-opt, treetop
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google,
goggle, googly
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gflags -> flags,
gulags, g flags
shflags.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://shflags.googlecode.com/files/shflags-1.0.3.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings.
--
You've already addressed the FSF address issue. The 404 is due to
Google's badly-behaved web servers. The rest are harmless.
ok - License is acceptable (LGPLv2+)
ok - License field in spec is correct
Please make sure to fix the License field if upstream disagrees
with the LGPLv2+ assessment.
ok - License files included in package %docs if included in source package
ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
Upstream MD5: b4d7133696ec05b71b27d8df5e278f0f shflags-1.0.3.tgz
Your MD5: b4d7133696ec05b71b27d8df5e278f0f shflags-1.0.3.tgz
ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
ok - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
ok - BuildRequires correct
-- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
-- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
ok - No bundled libs
-- - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
-- - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Package contains permissible code or content
-- - Large docs go in -doc subpackage
ok - %doc files not required at runtime
-- - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
-- - Development files go in -devel package
-- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
ok - No .la files
-- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
ok - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
ok - File names are valid UTF-8
Optional review guidelines:
-- - Query upstream about including license files
no - Translations of description, summary
ok - Builds in mock
ok - Builds on all arches
ok - Functions as described (e.g. no crashes)
-- - Scriptlets are sane
-- - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible
-- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible
ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
-- - Include man pages if available
Naming guidelines:
ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+
ok - Package names are sane
ok - No naming conflicts
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - Version is sane
ok - Version does not contain ~
ok - Release is sane
ok - %dist tag
ok - Case used only when necessary
-- - Renaming handled correctly
Packaging guidelines:
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - No kmods
ok - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep
ok - Sources contain only redistributable code or content
ok - Spec format is sane
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target
ok - No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17
-- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
-- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17
ok - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local
ok - Changelog in prescribed format
ok - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags
ok - Summary does not end in a period
-- - Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6
-- - Correct %clean section on < EL6
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc
ok - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x)
-- - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc
-- - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
-- - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs
-- - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
-- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
ok - No static executables
-- - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
-- - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config
ok - No config files under /usr
-- - Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir
-- - .desktop files are sane
ok - Spec uses macros consistently
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate
ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
-- - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work
-- - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time
-- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir
ok - No software collections (scl)
ok - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs
-- - %global, not %define
-- - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it
-- - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel
ok - File ops preserve timestamps
-- - Parallel make
ok - No Requires(pre,post) notation
-- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
-- - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www
-- - Conflicts are justified
ok - One project per package
ok - No bundled fonts
-- - Patches have appropriate commentary
ok - Available test suites executed in %check
-- - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
