[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

[Bug 225647] Merge Review: compat-db



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=225647

Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-05 09:55:39 EDT ---
Good:

- rpmlint checks return: 

Lots of unversion-explicit provides and obsolete-not-provided which should be
fixed/dropped etc.

compat-db.spec:209: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.

Trivial fix.

compat-db45.x86_64: E: devel-dependency compat-db-headers
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.

Fix, if possible.

compat-db45.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

Ignore, I suspect.

Lots of no-man-page-for-binary.  Ignore.

Lots of rpath warning.  Fix if at all possible.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( BSD ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package N/A
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r N/A

The requires situation is unorthodox, but logical given the nature of the
package.

Really looks like it's just the rpmlint stuff, let me know if you'd like me to
commit any of this.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Add to Google