[Bug 487312] Review Request: tuned - A dynamic adaptive system tuning daemon

[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=487312


Thomas Woerner <twoerner at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(pknirsch at redhat.c
                   |                            |om)




--- Comment #3 from Thomas Woerner <twoerner at redhat.com>  2009-02-26 10:14:53 EDT ---
MUST Items
----------

[WARN] rpmlint output

$ rpmlint tuned-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint tuned-0.1.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
tuned.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/tuned $prog
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[OK] The warning here can be ignored, it is not incoherent, because $prog
contains the correct value.

$  rpmlint tuned-utils-0.1.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 
tuned-utils.noarch: W: no-documentation
tuned-utils.noarch: E: devel-dependency kernel-debuginfo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

[WARN] There is no description for the utils package.
[OK] The error can be ignored, the kernel-debuginfo package is requires to use
systemtap.

[OK] Named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package.
[FAIL/INFO] The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines.

FAIL: The description is not more than the summary. Please add some more
information maybe on how it is working or how it should be used.
INFO: There is a README and README.txt. What is the difference?

[OK] Meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+).
[OK] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[OK] License file included in %doc.
[OK] Spec file written in American English.
[OK] Spec file is legible.
[OK] Source matches upstream.
[OK] Package successfully compiles and builds at least one primary
architecture.
[OK] No build dependencies.
[OK] No localized files, therefore no locale support needed.
[OK] No schared libs, therefore no ldconfig needed.
[OK] Not relocatable.
[OK] Package ownes all directories it creates.
[OK] Does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[OK] Permissions on files are set properly.
[OK] Has a correct %clean section.
[OK] Macros consistently used.
[OK] Code or permissible content.
[OK] No large documentation files, therefore no -doc subpackage needed.
[OK] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[OK] No header files and no libraries, therefore no -devel subpackage needed.
[OK] No static libs, therefore no -static subpackage needed.
[OK] No pkgconfig file, therefore no requires for pkgconfig needed.
[OK] No GUI applications, therefore no %{name}.desktop file needed.
[OK] Does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[OK] Cleanup at the beginning of %install.
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items
------------

[OK] License file included.
[BAD] No translations for Non-English languages.
[OK] Builds in mock.
[OK] Should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[BAD] Package functions as described: Not enough information for this.
[OK] Scriptlets seem to be sane.
[OK] No -devel subpackage, therefore no requirement for base package needed.
[OK] -utils subpackage is independent, therefore no requirement for base
package needed.
[OK] No pkgconfig files, therefore no placement needed.
[OK] No file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin.

-- 
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.