[Bug 229391] Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229391


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

adel.gadllah at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |adel.gadllah at gmail.com




------- Additional Comments From adel.gadllah at gmail.com  2007-07-19 18:32 EST -------
I am not sponsored yet so this is no real review:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
->ok (no output)

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
->ok

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on  Package Naming Guidelines. 
->ok

MUST: The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines.
->NOT ok:
- please add %{?_smp_mflags} to make
- use a URL for Source and not just the tarball's name

MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
-> ok

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
->ok

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 must be included in %doc.
->ok

MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
->ok

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
->ok

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. 
->NOT ok: no url provided for Source and URL results in 404 Error => can't check

MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
-> ok (builds fine on x86_64; is a noarch package)


MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture.

->NOT ok: s390 s390x excluded without comments I think this is due to no kdump
support on this arches correct? 

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional.
->ok

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
->ok

MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
->ok (no libs)

MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
that specific package.
->ok (not relocateable)

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
->ok

MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
->ok

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
->ok

MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
->ok

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines. 
->ok

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
->ok

MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
->ok (no large docs)

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
->ok

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
->ok (no devel package)

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
->ok (no static libs)

MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
->ok (no pkgconfig files)

MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
->ok (no libs)

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
->ok (no devel package)

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
->ok

MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
->ok

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
->ok

MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
->ok

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
->ok

----

Summary:
Package looks good. Only a few issues:
- Use a URL for Source
- Fix URL
- use smp_flags
- Add comments to the ExcludeArch (I assume that there is no kdump support on
this platforms so no bugreports needed)









-- 
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.