Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: logserial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214669
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-11 23:29 EST ------- OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) 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: 833fff07602e4a21f447aa194d14ecd8 logserial-0.4.2.tar.gz 833fff07602e4a21f447aa194d14ecd8 logserial-0.4.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
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. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock. x86_64/i386 - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. Given how long since the last upstream release of this package it seems unlikely, but any chance of them including a COPYING file?
2. Instead of the flags you set in the logserial-makefile.patch perhaps you could set $RPM_OPT_FLAGS instead?