Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/meataxe/meataxe.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/meataxe/meataxe-2.4.24-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The MeatAxe is a set of programs for working with matrix representations over finite fields. Permutation representations are supported to some extent, too. This package is used by some GAP add-on packages.
Please remove the double-space from the descriptions. Please make the build verbose by removing the at-signs from $(CC). Library and binaries end up with 775 permissions, which they shouldn't. Don't ship the README, as it contains nothing useful, as far as I can see. I'm a bit worried about the generic names of the files in bindir, but there seem to be no clashes so far.
(In reply to comment #1) > Please remove the double-space from the descriptions. In my view, those double spaces are correct. They are used by a number of tools, including XEmacs, which I use to edit spec files, to distinguish a period that ends an abbreviation, such as "etc.", from a period that ends a sentence. This is used when reflowing text. > Please make the build verbose by removing the at-signs from $(CC). Done. > Library and binaries end up with 775 permissions, which they shouldn't. Hmmm, that's odd. The permissions came out correct when I built on my desktop machine. I'm not sure how that happened, but I've changed the spec to make sure that it cannot happen in the future. > Don't ship the README, as it contains nothing useful, as far as I can see. It contains the email address where bug reports should be sent, which is the only reason I included it. > I'm a bit worried about the generic names of the files in bindir, but there > seem to be no clashes so far. Me, too. I'll talk with upstream about making them less generic in a future release. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/meataxe/meataxe.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/meataxe/meataxe-2.4.24-2.fc16.src.rpm
Summary: - Maybe you can keep the manpage timestamps - smp_mflags doesn't help on target rebuild-doc - Consider to ship README in the libs-subpackage, as the e-mail address is useful with this part as well - Consider to rephrase the devel summary, because not only header files are installed Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST If (and only 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. The specfile states, upstream is not interested in shared libraries, so we'll have to live with that. meataxe-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmtx.so.2.4.24 exit.5 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The path is only used to generate the documentation, so that should be fine. meataxe.src:58: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/gcc/*/*/include`|" Custom source meataxe.src: W: invalid-url Source1: meataxe-man.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 7f66fad338372b7bc43c5c3adbabeb84 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. The manpages loose their original timestamp. I think this is not ideal. [-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
APPROVED, that is.
Thanks, Volker. I'll fix the issues you identified before importing the package. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: meataxe Short Description: Matrix representations over finite fields Owners: jjames Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
meataxe-2.4.24-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/meataxe-2.4.24-2.fc16
meataxe-2.4.24-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
meataxe-2.4.24-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.