[Bug 672203] Review Request: erlang-riak_err - Enhanced SASL Error Logger for Riak

Sat Jan 29 12:48:51 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672203

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |martin.gieseking at uos.de
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-01-29 07:48:49 EST ---
Hi Peter,

as far as I see, version 1.0.0 of riak_err hasn't been officially released yet.
So this is a snapshot package that should follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

Everything else looks fine.

$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
erlang-riak_err.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz
erlang-riak_err.x86_64: E: /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/ erlang-stdlib
erlang-riak_err.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-riak_err.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.

- explicit-lib-dependency is false positive
- no-binary is expected in pure Erlang packages
- only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is expected in pure Erlang packages

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
    - version 1.0.0 hasn't been released yet, thus this is a snapshot release:
      update the Release field accordingly

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz*
    94e7567877b306e0f0f13574ae3be8d8 
basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz
    94e7567877b306e0f0f13574ae3be8d8 
basho-riak_err-riak_err-1.0.0-0-g429f757.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: When compiling C, C++, and Fortran files, %{optflags} must be
applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[.] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

EPEL <= 5
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package must run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream,...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[.] SHOULD: patch files should be prefixed with %{name}-
[.] SHOULD: all patches should be commented in the spec file
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.