[Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 3 17:22:40 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: nano
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |dwmw2 at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 12:22 EST -------
Nice, a CC got added and I lost the entire review. Let's try this again in an external editor.
First, a couple of rpmlint complaints:
W: nano file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/fr/man1/rnano.1.gz
Just needs judicious application of iconf like the other two manpages.
W: nano prereq-use /sbin/install-info
The Prereq: line should be replaced with:
Other than those two items, the issues are the BuildRoot:, the scriptlets and
perhaps checking to see if it would be reasonable to update to 2.0.3.
* source files match upstream:
O package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
Release: should probably be an integer, but since the dist tag isn't being
used, this looks like a sub-release bump and I don't believe it violates
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O dist tag is not present.
X build root is not correct; should be
Whether this is absolutely mandatory depends on a decision by FESCo, which
should happen over the weekend.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
O latest version is not being packaged.
The current upstream version seems to be 2.0.3.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
nano = 1.3.12-1.1
* %check is not present, no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
X scriptlets not OK:
The install-info calls need "||:" at the end or a nodocs install will fail.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the package-review