Fedora Merge Review: rootfiles http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/rootfiles/ Initial Owner: pknirsch
rpmlint output: rootfiles.noarch: W: no-documentation rootfiles.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /root/.bashrc rootfiles.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /root/.cshrc rootfiles.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /root/.tcshrc rootfiles.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /root/.bash_logout rootfiles.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /root/.bash_profile rootfiles.noarch: W: no-url-tag rootfiles.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /root/.bash_logout rootfiles.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /root/.bash_profile rootfiles.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /root/.bashrc rootfiles.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /root/.cshrc rootfiles.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /root/.tcshrc rootfiles.src: W: no-%build-section rootfiles.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. All of these except the url tag warning are fine due to the special nature of the package. - For the url tag, add the disclaimer available at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#We_are_Upstream to the spec file. - Add %{?dist} to the release tag. - Preserve time stamps with install -p. After these are fixed the package is good to go.
- %{?dist} has already been added in a recent version - Added the "we-are-upstream" comments above the sources - Added the -p option to the install command to preserve timestamps rootfiles-8.1-4 should contain all the requested fixes and has just been built in rawhide. Thanks & regards, Phil
Review: X source files match upstream (we are upstream) X package meets naming and versioning guidelines. X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is present. X build root is correct. X license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible. X license text not included upstream. X latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are appropriate. X %clean is present. X package builds in mock. X package installs properly. X debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: * Is ncurses really necessary?? X no check available X no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. X owns the directories it creates. X doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate. X no scriptlets present. X code, not content. X documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. X %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X no headers. X no pkgconfig files. X no libtool .la droppings. X no desktop files I don't think the ncurses requirement should be there, since the bug only affects older distributions. Maybe add a conditional for older distros that are affected by the bug? On the other hand, this would make the spec unnecessarily complicated. In any case, add a note about the ncurses requirement so that it may be dropped in the future. **** The package has been found to adhere to the guidelines and is thus APPROVED
Maybe clear itself could be removed as well - and of course the ncurses requirements ( as discussed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=223960 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429406) and rootfiles generally updated to comply with bash provided all-users-files in /etc/skel...