Bug 428748
| Summary: | Review Request: ltspfs - LTSP filesystem | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Warren Togami <wtogami> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kevin, ma, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-03-10 23:05:10 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: | 188611 | ||
|
Description
Warren Togami
2008-01-14 22:19:09 UTC
A couple of things I noticed while glancing at the spec: What's supposed to provide /usr/share/ldm? There's no need to mark manpages as %doc; rpmbuild does that automatically. It doesn't hurt anything to do so, though. http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs.spec http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs-0.4.2-0.20080114.fc8.src.rpm Incorporated fixes based on Comment #1. I'd be happy to review this. Look for a full review in a bit... See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL+) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The URL should possibly be: https://code.launchpad.net/ltspfs 2. This is a prerelease snapshot? Release should be: 0.0.20080114%{?dist} instead of 0.20080114%{?dist} See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a 3. You should include a comment on how to check out this version: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-615f6271efb394ab340a93a6cf030f2d08cf0d49 4. rpmlint says: ltspfs.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ltspfs-0.4.2/ChangeLog Suggest: Drop the Changelog until it has anything in it? ltspfsd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/88-ltsp.rules Should this be a conf(noreplace)? Or does it matter? http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs.spec http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs-0.4.2-0.20080310.fc8.src.rpm > 3. You should include a comment on how to check out this version: I thought I did near the top? > ltspfsd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/88-ltsp.rules > Should this be a conf(noreplace)? Or does it matter? Doesn't matter. http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs.spec http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs-0.4.2-0.1.20080310.fc8.src.rpm Oops. The copy failed. Ah, much better... that seems to address all the issues I see... this package is APPROVED. cvs done and built in rawhide |