Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 226404 - Merge Review: sed
Merge Review: sed
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Miroslav Lichvar
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 15:57 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: F 8
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-10-05 11:20:43 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mlichvar: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 15:57:16 EST
Fedora Merge Review: sed

Initial Owner: pmachata@redhat.com
Comment 1 Petr Machata 2007-02-07 14:19:13 EST
Tidied up version commited, not built.
rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm.
Comment 2 Miroslav Lichvar 2007-09-05 13:00:44 EDT
I'll look into this.
Comment 3 Miroslav Lichvar 2007-09-06 05:11:39 EDT
- rpmlint is silent
- the package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- the spec file name matches the base package %{name}
X the package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
  - please remove glibc from requires and buildrequires, and remove version from
the glibc-devel buildrequirement as newer glibc packages are in currently
supported releases
  - consider changing URL to http://sed.sourceforge.net/
  - add -p option to preserve the timestamp for sedfaq
  - replace %makeinstall with make DESTDIR=...
- the package is licensed with a Fedora approved license
- the License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2+)
X if the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be
included in %doc
  - please add COPYING and COPYING.DOC to %doc
- the spec file is written in American English
- the spec file for the package is legible
- the sources used to build the package matches the upstream source
X all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
  - gawk is missing (until FESCo approves a new package listing for buildroot)
- the spec file handles locales properly
- the package owns all directories that it creates
- the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing
- permissions on files are set properly
- the package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- the package consistently uses macros
- the package contains code, or permissible content
- files included as %doc don't affect the runtime of the application
- the package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages
- at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8
- scriptlets are sane
Comment 4 Petr Machata 2007-10-04 13:58:13 EDT
Thanks for review. Tidied up version commited, not built.
Comment 5 Miroslav Lichvar 2007-10-05 07:52:22 EDT
gawk is no longer needed in buildrequires, please remove it in next commit.

Comment 6 Petr Machata 2007-10-05 11:20:43 EDT
Committed & built.

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