Bug 226312 - Merge Review: ppc64-utils
Merge Review: ppc64-utils
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Susi Lehtola
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 15:42 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-04-24 18:31 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-04-04 17:49:26 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
susi.lehtola: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 15:42:42 EST
Fedora Merge Review: ppc64-utils

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/ppc64-utils/
Initial Owner: pnasrat@redhat.com
Comment 1 omar 2008-02-27 06:09:38 EST
I found ppc64-utils-0.14-1.fc9.ppc.rpm empty. It doesn't provides any binaries.

--Regards
  Omar M
Comment 2 IBM Bug Proxy 2008-02-29 05:34:39 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> I found ppc64-utils-0.14-1.fc9.ppc.rpm empty. It doesn't provides any binaries.
> 
> --Regards
>   Omar M

Bug #435427 is opened for addressing this issue
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435427)
Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2009-04-04 17:37:23 EDT
Okay, let's get this review done with.
Comment 4 Susi Lehtola 2009-04-04 17:49:26 EDT
rpmlint output:
ppc64-utils.ppc: W: no-documentation
ppc64-utils.ppc: W: no-url-tag
ppc64-utils.ppc: E: no-binary
ppc64-utils.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ppc64-utils.src: W: no-url-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
- Doesn't have source url, but there's nothing to point to since the package is empty.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK

MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. NEEDSFIX

SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK


Summary:

- There's no documentation or source since the package is empty.

- No binary error is due to package being ExclusiveArch ppc{,64}; noarch is not a possibility due to the nature of the package.

- Buildroot is not cleaned, but nothing is installed anyway. Cleaning of buildroot might be a good thing to have, just in case.

and most importantly

- although Fedora has a policy of requiring code or content in the package, in this case the package is needed due to legacy considerations. I'm closing this from clogging the review request list in BZ. In the long run some other package should probably take the role of this package, e.g. basesystem (which seems to be also a metapackage) [which is actually noarch, and as such can't be used].


You can fix the cleaning issue in CVS, if you bother.
Comment 5 Susi Lehtola 2009-04-24 16:42:06 EDT
Ping, please acknowledge.
Comment 6 Tony Breeds 2009-04-24 18:31:35 EDT
(In reply to comment #5)
> Ping, please acknowledge.  


I'll look into this ASAP, (probably in 2 days).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.