https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438853
--- Comment #3 from Dan Horák <d...@danny.cz> ---
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
OK source files match upstream:
f3ed143ba16fb4232a237f51cddaee276af896c8 0.9.7.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (ISC). License text included in
package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK* BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with
ldconfig call.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK correct scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK headers in devel subpackage
OK pkgconfig files in devel subpackage
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- please do the 2 changes Ralf proposed, use %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz style
for the source and use a verbose build (easier to read the build log than
inspect *.o files for used compiler flags)
- doxygen is present in BR, but there are no docs generated
- rpmlint complains a bit
lldpd.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C lldpd is an ISC-licensed
implementation of LLDP
lldpd.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C lldpd
lldpd.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C lldpd is an ISC-licensed implementation
of LLDP
lldpd.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C lldpd
lldpd-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C lldpd is an ISC-licensed
implementation of LLDP
-> Summary: ISC-licensed implementation of LLDP
lldpd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lldpd lldpd
lldpd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lldpd lldpd
lldpd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lldpd-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
lldpd.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
lldpd.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
lldpd.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lldpd.d/README.conf
-> OK, can be ignored
lldpd.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/lldpd/ChangeLog
-> drop the file from %doc, needs git tree and NEWS is sufficient,
Contribute.md can dropped too
lldpd.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 9)
lldpd.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/sbin/lldpd
lldpd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblldpctl.so.4.8.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
lldpd.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/lldpd/chroot
lldpd.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/lldpd
lldpd-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on lldpd/lldpd-libs/liblldpd
-> need fix or comment
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
