Fedora Merge Review: strace http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/strace/ Initial Owner: roland
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (BSD) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2 ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: See below - Should build in mock. See below - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 3 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might consider adding the COPYRIGHT file as a %doc. Additionally: Changelog CREDITS NEWS PORTING TODO might also be nice to have as doc files. 2. Please use the approved buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. If this package can avoid it, please don't use '%makeinstall'. Instead use 'make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install' instead. See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall 4. Our pal rpmlint says: a) W: strace summary-ended-with-dot Tracks and displays system calls associated with a running process. Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary. b) W: strace macro-in-%changelog patch Suggest: change the "%patch" in the changelog to "%%patch" to make sure rpm doesn't expand it as a macro. 5. This package doesn't seem to compile under mock for i386/x86_64 in devel. The build ends in: net.c: In function 'printsock': net.c:957: error: field 'nl' has incomplete type make[1]: *** [net.o] Error 1 Can you duplicate this problem there? I ran the above checks against the fc6 version for now, but once it builds I will want to make a recheck for devel. 6. Only 3 outstanding bugs, and none of them seem directly related to packaging. You might want to take a look at them and see if any of them can be addressed while you are making the above changes. 7. Why the strace64_arches sections? It seems to contain ppc64, but I don't think thats a platform fedora currently builds for. 8. Minor: might add '%{?_smp_mflags}' to the make line to support faster builds on multi cpu machines. 9. Is there a reason to not ship the 'strace-graph' binary?
Resetting flags and such per the new offical review guidelines. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html
I think all these issues are resolved in the F8 (maybe even F7) rpms. Please complete the review. strace-graph has never been included or supported in any Fedora or RHL release before. I don't intend to start maintaining it now.
Yes indeed. All above items are taken care of. Thanks for looking at it. The only very minor issue I see now is: strace.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/strace-4.5.16/ChangeLog strace.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/strace-4.5.16/CREDITS If you like, you could run 'iconv' and make sure those files are utf8. No big deal. You are of course free to not ship strace-graph, but do you think it would be an additional support burden? This merge review is APPROVED. Feel free to close RAWHIDE.
I converted those files, so they won't be flagged in the next version when it's released.