Bug 201806
| Summary: | Review Request: mbuffer | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Alexander Dalloz <alex> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Paul Howarth <paul> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-08-11 00:32:41 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||
|
Description
Alexander Dalloz
2006-08-08 22:20:38 UTC
rpmlint on SRPM is not silent W: mbuffer mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Given that I already approved this package back in the old days, I'll take another quick look at it later today when I a free moment or two; shouldn't take too long. (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint on SRPM is not silent > W: mbuffer mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs > The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a > cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Thanks, did rpmlint just against the binary rpm. Now fixed it without version bump (the 2 compile options needed another tab indent). Review ====== - rpmlint clean - package and spec file name OK - package meets guidelines - license is GPL, matches spec, text included - spec file written in English and is legible - sources match upstrem - package builds OK in mock for FC5.x86_64 - BR's OK - no locales, libraries, subpackages or pkgconfigs to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions issues - no duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime - no desktop file needed for CLI app - package appears to function correctly - no scriptlets Needswork: * No point including the NEWS file as it just says to look in ChangeLog Are you sponsored? I don't see your bugzilla address in owners.list. Thanks Paul! I removed the NEWS file from %docs and bumped release. The new SRPM URL: http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer-20060728-2.src.rpm Spec URL: http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer.spec Yes, I was sponsored last year by Warren and maintain 2 packages (keychain + pam_abl) in Extas. My FE mail address is different to my BZ account - please see the %changelog for the FE address. (In reply to comment #5) > Thanks Paul! I removed the NEWS file from %docs and bumped release. The new > > SRPM URL: http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer-20060728-2.src.rpm > Spec URL: http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer.spec OK, APPROVED. > Yes, I was sponsored last year by Warren and maintain 2 packages (keychain + > pam_abl) in Extas. My FE mail address is different to my BZ account - please see > the %changelog for the FE address. Hmm, I thought the FE and BZ addresses had to match or things got very confused. As long as you receive your bug reports it's OK though :-) Thanks Paul for the work and approval. I will ask at other place about the mail address. So far I am listed in the owners.list with my bugzilla address, and I am getting bug tickets about my packages properly. Though not a requirement, I changed my bugzilla email address to prevent any future confusion. The devel branch build properly, so I am closing this ticket. |