Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 225625
Merge Review: bridge-utils
Last modified: 2012-01-13 07:13:44 EST
Fedora Merge Review: bridge-utils
Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
Review time! :-)
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
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.
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version
2 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.
1. The recommended value for BuildRoot is:
You may want to use that.
2. rpmlint says:
rpmlint on ./bridge-utils-1.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: bridge-utils setup-not-quiet
E: bridge-utils no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Easily fixed. Add -q to %setup, and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" after %install.
3. Latest version not used
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089 says 1.2 is
available (and has been since 2006-09-20). Please evaluate whether you
should be using this release instead.
4. Bugs open
There are two open bugs against this package:
I'm not sure either bug is still particularly valid (one is against FC4,
the other looks like it should be resolved).
If you can address the issues above, I think we can call bridge-utils
Other notes on the bump to 1.2: You can (well, need to) drop patches 1-5, as
they've been merged upstream, and you need to add a BR and call to autoconf
before %configure, since they didn't ship a pre-made configure script in 1.2.
Just a reminder for when you get back.
*punts the ball back to dwmw2*
As requested by David, I've gone ahead and made the changes I recommended.
(Thanks David!) For the record, the recommended BuildRoot tag has changed since
I started this review:
I've labelled the spec 1.2-3, but haven't tagged it or kicked off a new build.
Got a couple more open bugs than before (4 now), but that's life, so I don't
think that's a blocker. IOW, APPROVED.
This has been approved long time ago.