Bug 226418
Summary: | Merge Review: sharutils | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | pertusus, redhat-bugzilla, than |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
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: | 2008-09-04 19:24:09 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 20:59:16 UTC
There is a newer 4.6.3 release plus sig upstream: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/sharutils/REL-4.6.3/ > Prereq: /sbin/install-info Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info > %makeinstall Standard make install with DESTDIR ought to be preferred, provided that it works: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install The %makeinstall macro overrides many Make variables, which can lead to %buildroot finding its way into built files. > mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_docdir}-%{name}-%{version} This line should be unnecessary for files installed with %doc. > BuildRoot: ... Doesn't match the Fedora standard %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) and might be rejected as soon as it might become mandatory. Additionally some issues: .gz in install-info scriptlets should be removed. You can add INSTALL='install -p' or the like to keep the timestamps of the man pages. There are checks, they should certainly be run in %check with make check I don't think that the following line, in the description is useful: Install sharutils if you send binary files through e-mail. rpmlint is not silent: sharutils.src:10: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info sharutils.src:158: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr sharutils.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot The GNU shar utilities for packaging and unpackaging shell archives. sharutils.src: W: invalid-license GPL sharutils.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sharutils-4.6.3/TODO sharutils.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sharutils-4.6.3/THANKS sharutils.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot The GNU shar utilities for packaging and unpackaging shell archives. sharutils.i386: W: invalid-license GPL sharutils-debuginfo.i386: W: invalid-license GPL A suggestion: replace %defattr(-,root,root) with %defattr(-,root,root,-) Also make %{?_smp_mflags} should be used unless it doesn't work. After recent checkins, this builds fine and rpmlint is silent. All of the above suggestions seem to have been addressed. One minor problem is that Requires(pre): info should be Requires(post): info. This is trivial, so I have committed a fix. * source files match upstream: 2f29604c9bc4471fb35975c10074bb3585dea66ebc52b5560989a370f2e3f00e sharutils-4.7.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: sharutils = 4.7-2.fc10 sharutils(x86-64) = 4.7-2.fc10 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl info perl(File::Temp) * %check is present and all tests pass: ================== All 5 tests passed ================== * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %find_lang used properly to collect locale files. * scriptlets are OK (info page installation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED |