[Bug 458024] Review Request: sblim-sfcc - Small Footprint CIM Client Library

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458024


Matt Domsch <matt_domsch at dell.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |matt_domsch at dell.com




--- Comment #2 from Matt Domsch <matt_domsch at dell.com>  2008-08-06 16:33:50 EDT ---
Review:

Fix all rpmlint errors/warnings.
sblim-sfcc.src: E: no-spec-file
sblim-sfcc.src: W: non-standard-group Systems Management/Base
sblim-sfcc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libcimcClientXML.so
sblim-sfcc.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc
sblim-sfcc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Systems Management/Base
sblim-sfcc.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.0-0 2.1.0-0
sblim-sfcc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/sblim-sfcc-2.1.0/backend/cimxml/indicationlistener.c
sblim-sfcc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/sblim-sfcc-2.1.0/backend/cimxml/nativeCimXml.h
sblim-sfcc-devel.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3
sblim-sfcc-devel.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man
sblim-sfcc-devel.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/include
sblim-sfcc-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Systems Management/Base
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 7 warnings.


Naming: ok
spec file name: wrong.  Should be sblim-sfcc.spec
version: ok
release: consider adding %{?dist}  tag
license: EPL OK
Source URL: not ok, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net

no prebuild binaries: ok
BuildRoot: not ok, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

Requires: curl  should get picked up automatically by the dependency processor,
don't add it here.

BuildRequires: don't list gcc-c++.

no packager, vendor, copyright, tags: ok
summary and description tags: ok

%setup shouldn't need those extra args
remove the export PATCH_GET
and commented #%patch0

%build make doesn't use the macro for invoking -j for parallel make.  Please
fix.

%install missing mandatory initial cleanup.  Should be:
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%install doesn't need the extra paranoia checking.

%clean doesn't need the extra paranoia checking.

no rpaths: ok
no config files: ok
no initscripts: ok
no desktop files: ok
consistent use of macros: ok
no makeinstall: ok
no lang files: ok
scriptlets: ok
no conditional deps: ok
builds with a normal user account: ok
not relocatable: ok
code, not content: ok
directory ownership: not ok.  package must not own %{_includedir} or %{_mandir}
itself.
users and groups: ok
not a web app: ok
conflicts: ok
no kmods: ok
no files under /srv: ok
license file not in %doc: must fix
english: ok
legible: ok
source matches: ok
package builds on x86_64 at least: ok
calls ldconfig appropriately: ok
no duplicate files: ok
file permissions: mostly ok, see rpmlint
headers in -devel: ok
no pkgconfig file (should it have one??)
devel package has fully versioned dependency on lib package: no - pls fix
libtool archives removed: ok


Please correct these items and re-submit.

Thanks,
Matt

-- 
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.