Bug 206395
| Summary: | Review Request: picocom - Minimal serial communications program | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | jafo-redhat |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Denis Leroy <denis> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | panemade |
| 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: | 2006-09-19 16:53:56 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
jafo-redhat
2006-09-14 04:15:05 UTC
{Not Official Reviewer}
packaging looks ok.
+ Mockbuild is successfull for i386 FC6
+ rpmlint on binary rpm is silent
- dist tag is NOT present
+ Buildroot is correct
+ source URL is correct
+ License used is GPL
+ License file LICENSE.txt is included
+ MD5 sum on tarball is matching upstream tarball
08fcc5f6bb9e7676a2569386d5ea9f70 picocom-1.4.tar.gz
+ No duplicate files
Not tested package.
You need to use macros change
/usr/bin/picocom
to
%{_bindir}/picocom
Looks good!
Must fix:
- debug package is broken. Just remove the strip command from the spec and let
RPM handle it automatically.
- RPM_OPT_FLAGS and compiler string are not honored. For example, just add
'CC=%{__cc} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to the make command. Also add
'%{_smp_mflags}' to make line.
- in %files section, use %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin/
- don't include empty TODO file.
Nice to have:
- use install instead of cp, to make sure files get correct permissions
Thanks for the review. I put the strip in there because rpmlint was winging about the binary not being stripped. I've removed it and made all other changes. ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/picocom.spec ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/picocom-1.4-2.src.rpm > I put the strip in there because rpmlint was winging
> about the binary not being stripped
This usually means you're missing an RPM development package. rpmdevtools,
rpmlint or rpm-libs, i forget which one.
Obviously I ha rpmlint :-). I already had rpm-libs, so it must have been rpmdevtools. I've got it installed now, thanks. Sean MUST items: - rpmlint clean - package names ok - spec follows guidelines - GPL license verified and included - tarball md5sum verified - clean mock build - own its directories - permissions good - no %files duplicates - standard Group: - executable is working - good %clean section I hereby solemny declare this package APPROVED! (don't forget to build your package and close this bug. thx) |