Bug 742627

Summary: Review Request: vios-proxy
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Perry Myers <pmyers>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Alan Pevec <apevec>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 5.8CC: apevec, matahari-maint, notting, nsantos, pm-rhel, tross
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: 5.8   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-10-07 19:20:59 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: 188273, 668609    

Description Perry Myers 2011-09-30 19:48:28 UTC
Description of problem:
Package Review for vios-proxy package

Comment 2 Alan Pevec 2011-10-06 20:20:33 UTC
vios-proxy.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtioserial -> serialization, virtuousness, triserial
vios-proxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US localhost -> local host, local-host, localism
vios-proxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtioserial -> serialization, virtuousness, triserial
vios-proxy.src: W: strange-permission vios-proxy-0.1.tar.gz 0444L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Comment 3 Alan Pevec 2011-10-06 20:39:39 UTC
SHOULD NOT mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

MUST include license text in all subpackages (you have them in independent -doc subpackage only!)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing

Other than that, looks ok.

Comment 4 Nuno Santos 2011-10-06 23:59:59 UTC
I fixed the two issues you pointed out (the spelling warnings are spurious), and have uploaded new versions of the spec and srpm to the same locations:

Specfile: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/vios-proxy/RHEL5/vios-proxy.spec
SRPMS:
http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/vios-proxy/RHEL5/vios-proxy-0.1-1.src.rpm

Comment 5 Alan Pevec 2011-10-07 13:06:18 UTC
FYI Fedora review request bug 727323

MUST
 rpmlint = OK, ignoring spurious spelling warning:
vios-proxy-guest.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vios-proxy-guest
 (see below)
 name = OK
 spec = OK
   file name = %{name}.spec
   American English
   legible
   locales %find_lang
   UTF-8 filenames
 Packaging Guidelines = OK
 license = OK
   Fedora approved
   spec field
   in %doc
 sources OK
462bd223f9c8220bb92c6ba5253870b9  vios-proxy-0.1.tar.gz
 build = OK
   ExcludeArch/bz#
 BuildRequires = OK
 shared libraries = N/A
   ldconfig in %post and %postun
   no system libraries
 relocatable = N/A
 directories = OK
   own all or require a package
   no directory conflicts
 no dups in %files (exception: license texts) = OK
 Permissions = OK
 consistently use macros = OK
 code or permissable content = OK
 -doc subpackage = OK
 no runtime in %doc  = OK
 -devel = N/A
   headers
   library without suffix
   Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
   no .la libtool archives
 -static = N/A
 desktop-file-install %{name}.desktop = N/A

SHOULD
 build in mock
https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/taskinfo?taskID=3693579
 build on all supported architectures = OK
 missing man pages => ask upstream = Not a blocker
   from rpmlint: no-manual-page-for-binary vios-proxy-guest