Bug 697829
Summary: | Review Request: libpipeline - A pipeline manipulation library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ivana Varekova <varekova> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jan Safranek <jsafrane> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, jsafrane, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jsafrane:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2011-04-26 09:39:49 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
Ivana Varekova
2011-04-19 11:48:58 UTC
I'll review it. Listing MUST review items where I have comments, all others are OK. # MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] rpmlint complains: libpipeline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execve -> executive, execked, execute IMHO it's OK and does not block the review. # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] Looking at the code, the actual license is GPLv3+, not GPLv3. This should be fixed. # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] The %{?_isa} part is missing in the .spec file. Is it something new? It wasn't required when I did last review (it's a long time ago...). # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] gnulib has exception, but Packaging guidelines suggest that the package should Provide: bundled(gnulib) All SHOULD items are OK. Looking at the .spec file itself, I notice few cosmetic nits: - Source0 could contain %{version} so it does not need to be manually updated with every rebase. - Both %description texts should end with dot '.' at the end. - There is additional 'ls -la' in %install section - it does not harm, nor does it help anything. - %post can be simple %post -p /sbin/ldconfig, like %postun is. Feel free to ignore any of these comments. So, apart from the license, suboptimal Requires: in devel subpackage and missing Provides:bundled(gnulib) the package is IMHO fine to be approved. Thanks for the review, all points except %post section one fixed, updated srpm and spec. I approve the package. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libpipeline Short Description: A pipeline manipulation library Owners: varekova Branches: InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). |