Bug 225630
Summary: | Merge Review: buildsys-macros | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dennis Gregorovic <dgregor> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dgregor |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | roozbeh:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-02-03 19:54:32 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: |
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 17:48:13 UTC
rpmlint output: W: buildsys-macros non-standard-group Development/Buildsystem W: buildsys-macros incoherent-version-in-changelog 7-1.fc6 7-1.fc7 W: buildsys-macros no-url-tag W: buildsys-macros no-documentation W: buildsys-macros non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.disttag The first two should at least be corrected. Other random comments: * Change license to public domain. A 21-byte file is not really worth licensing as GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIfWorkIsShort * Comment line before "Version:" talks about Fedora Core. Should be changed to Fedora. * Description field is the same as Summary field. Not good. * Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc everywhere. * Consider using echo instead of printf. The printf lines are tricky and not very legible. * In the first line that writes to the macros.disttag line, use ">" instead of ">>". * The package puts files in /etc/rpm without owning that directory or requiring any package that does so (blocker). * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) Thank you for the review. I've checked in fixes for everything except "no-documentation" as none is needed. Minor remaining issues: MUST: US English * I am not a native speaker, but I think you need a "the" before 'dist' in the package description: "define the product version and *the* 'dist' tag". MUST: rpmlint output W: buildsys-macros conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.disttag This is bad, I think. Using %config(noreplace) is recommended, although I don't see any real difference, as I don't think anybody may install this package on his normal box where it may be updated. It's not in the normal repos IIRC. W: buildsys-macros no-documentation It's fine. The bureaucracy: MUST: named fine MUST: spec file named fine MUST: packaging guidelines met (except noreplace, mentioned above) MUST: license fine MUST: no license file needed as it's public domain MUST: spec file was made legible MUST: no source MUST: builds into noarch on FC6/i386 MUST: no excludearch MUST: no special build deps MUST: no locale MUST: not a lib MUST: not relocatable MUST: requires rpm that owns /etc/rpm MUST: permissions fine MUST: no dup files MUST: file permissions fine MUST: %clean section exists MUST: macro use fine MUST: package has code MUST: no large docs MUST: no %doc MUST: no header or static lib MUST: no *.pc MUST: no *.so.* MUST: no -devel MUST: no *.la MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' files Package is approved. Thanks again for the review. I agree that %config(noreplace) makes sense even though this package isn't expected to be installed by end users. Fixes checked in. |