[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jdula...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- New Package GIT Request === Package Name: ti-uim Short Description: Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-22 F-21 F-20 InitialCC: -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-01 14:03:57 --- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- thanks for the review -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail. |
|com)|
--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com ---
Any reason for using %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ? The only
time I see it is where it is defined.
An oversight
Since you are using a couple directories (/usr/lib/udev/ and
/usr/lib/systemd) owned by systemd, you probably ought to require systemd
for completeness.
Possibly, but it's also superfluous, and the binary is also usable without
systemd.
In your %files section, you're explicitly using /usr/lib/ instead of
%{_libdir}
It's a udev rule, all udev rules are explicitly in /usr/lib whether 32 or 64
bit so in this case the macro is not used.
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org --- All right, review accepted. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jdula...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875
John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com
Flags||needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #2 from John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org ---
Okay, a few things:
Any reason for using %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ? The only
time I see it is where it is defined.
Since you are using a couple directories (/usr/lib/udev/ and /usr/lib/systemd)
owned by systemd, you probably ought to require systemd for completeness.
In your %files section, you're explicitly using /usr/lib/ instead of %{_libdir}
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875
--- Comment #1 from John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address). Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/1195875-ti-
uim/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
/usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib/systemd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define
