[Bug 244411] Review Request: rpmorphan - rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 17 02:55:44 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: Review Request: rpmorphan - rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244411
------- Additional Comments From tyler.l.owen at gmail.com 2007-06-16 22:55 EST -------
This is not an official review as I am not sponsored yet. But I hope it will help.
FIX - rpmlint not quiet
Source RPM
W: rpmorphan summary-not-capitalized rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm
packages.
W: rpmorphan summary-ended-with-dot rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm
packages.
Binary RPM
rpmlint rpmorphan-1.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm
W: rpmorphan spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/rpmorphan-1.0/test_rpmorphan.pl
E: rpmorphan standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
E: rpmorphan zero-length /var/lib/rpmorphan/keep
E: rpmorphan standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1
W: rpmorphan summary-not-capitalized rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm
packages.
W: rpmorphan summary-ended-with-dot rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm
packages.
W: rpmorphan doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/rpmorphan-1.0/test_rpmorphan.pl perl(Test::More)
FIX - Source0 should be a URL to the upstream source
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-e27982f18a3bfd26b5b6ecbee113d2d8f3f006f2
OK - Mock : Built on F7 (x86)
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
FIX - Spec has consistant macro usage.
File section has a mix of macros and no macros. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros for a listing of
macros
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License is GPL
OK - License file is included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum:
560f78f6efe95a864072de6829bb8e00 rpmorphan-1.0.tar.gz
OK - Package has correct buildroot.
OK - extras BuildRequires are not redundant.
OK - %build and %install stages are correct and work.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
FIX - Package doesn't own any directories that other packages own.
RPM tries to own /usr/bin (%dir %{_bindir})
RPM tries to own /usr/share/man/man1 (dir %{_mandir}/man1)
? - Changelog section is correct.
I am not sure what the rule actually is, but all the examples and other
SPECs I have looked at didn't have the .fc7 as part of the changlog entry
Also might consider putting in something other than just 1.0 such as
Initial RPM Release, here again I am not sure what the rule is, but everyone seems
to use that.
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should package latest version
Package builds, installs and runs OK in F7 x86
--
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
mailing list