[Bug 513784] Review Request: lxc - Linux Resource Containers

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jul 26 05:05:22 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Walter Gould <walt at gouldfamily.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Walter Gould <walt at gouldfamily.org>  2009-07-26 01:05:20 EDT ---
 lxc - Linux Resource Containers 
 Package Review


OK - rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
 [gouldwp at newdisco-devel i586]$ rpmlint *.rpm
 lxc-libs.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/liblxc-0.6.3.so  
exit at GLIBC_2.0
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

 [gouldwp at newdisco-devel SRPMS]$ rpmlint lxc-0.6.3-1.fc11.src.rpm 
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
OK - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK - 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 - The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the  Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

Upstream source: 417bb6dd61ba0c65996df5c3adbb549f  lxc-0.6.3.tar.gz
Build Source:    417bb6dd61ba0c65996df5c3adbb549f 

OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
    Tested on F11.
OK - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
OK - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
N/A - The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
OK - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
N/A - 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK - A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK - Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK - Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
OK - The package must contain code, or permissable content.
N/A - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK - Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
OK - 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
OK - devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
 find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete
N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
OK -  Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
OK -  At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK -  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Everything looks acceptable to me.  Package approved.

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list