Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 226420
Merge Review: slang
Last modified: 2008-12-12 09:33:33 EST
Fedora Merge Review: slang
Initial Owner: email@example.com
$ cd slang/devel
$ cvs remove -f slang-2.1.2-makefile.patch
$ cvs commit -m ''
The file is unused and has been superseded.
$ rpmlint /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/slang-2.1.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm
slang.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/slang-2.1.3/changes.txt
=> minor -- a few contributor's fornames use various encodings
> warning: call to '__warn_memset_zero_len' declared with
> attribute warning: memset used with constant zero length
> parameter; this could be due to transposed parameters
This is a false positive.
> checking for the onig library and header files oniguruma.h... no
oniguruma-devel is in Fedora, so add --without-onig for
reproducible builds if it should not be built with. Else add
it as BuildRequires.
Else I don't see any packaging problems.
slang-2.1.3-2.fc9 buildrequires oniguruma-devel and the old makefile patch has
On current version:
rpmlint on SRPM is clean.
rpmlint on RPMS:
slang.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/slang-2.1.4/changes.txt
The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in
the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1).
slang-static.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
Fix if static-only docs exist.
Source tag should be Source0.
Comment in spec on patch upstream status.
Otherwise, looks good on full review, no other blockers.
Also noticed that this review had been flagged + but never assigned or closed.
The changelog is a mix of UTF8 and ISO-8859-1.
Source seems to be a valid rpm tag, or is there a guideline requiring use of Source0?
The patches were not send to upstream, they just fix some file permissions, rpath and disable using a private glibc symbol to follow our guidelines.
(In reply to comment #4)
> The changelog is a mix of UTF8 and ISO-8859-1.
Right. Should be UTF-8.
> Source seems to be a valid rpm tag, or is there a guideline requiring use of
I got confused, I was thinking pf Patch vs. Patch0. Still a good practice, but not a blocker.
> The patches were not send to upstream, they just fix some file permissions,
> rpath and disable using a private glibc symbol to follow our guidelines.
So fix the changelog ang comment on the patches in the spec and we're good.
Should be fixed in slang-2.1.4-2.fc11.
Excellent, thank you!