Fedora Merge Review: man-pages-ja http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/man-pages-ja/ Initial Owner: tagoh
Preliminary review => rpmlint on SRPM gave me man-pages-ja.src:43: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT | make $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. rpmlint on RPM gave me man-pages-ja.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/man-pages-ja-20070815/translation_lists/SysVinit.translation_list The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). for all the files in /usr/share/doc/man-pages-ja-20070815/translation_lists/ also, Dunno why so many messages in build.log Use of uninitialized value in numeric comparison (<=>) at script/configure.perl line 239. SHOULD: preserve timestamps. use %defattr(-,root,root,-) Update to new upstream release. http://www.linux.or.jp/JM/man-pages-ja-20070915.tar.gz Use disttag
Improved. Spec File: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/man-pages-ja/man-pages-ja.spec SRPM File: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/man-pages-ja/man-pages-ja-20070915-1.fc8.src.rpm
I think you should preserve timestamps.
Which one are you talking about? Since the original man pages are encoded in EUC-JP and we want to see the Japanese man pages in UTF-8, it's being converted at the build time. the content itself is the same though, actually it's the different files IMHO.
(In reply to comment #4) > Which one are you talking about? > > Since the original man pages are encoded in EUC-JP and we want to see the > Japanese man pages in UTF-8, it's being converted at the build time. the content > itself is the same though, actually it's the different files IMHO. Oh yes. Sorry. I Forgot that we used iconv and that created new files with new timestamp.
Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM. + source files match upstream. 40af705db14a4ef92bacc0d3e78a4aff man-pages-ja-20070915.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. APPROVED.
Thanks for reviewing. the updated package has been built.