[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)

[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=481034


Michal Schmidt <mschmidt at redhat.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #20 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt at redhat.com>  2009-03-17 12:44:26 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint was run and its output discussed.
OK: Package name meets the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: The *.spec file name matches the package name.
OK: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines:
  OK: naming
  OK: version and release
  OK: licensing
  OK: no pre-built binaries
  OK: spec is legible
  OK: builds on all archs
  OK: FHS layout
  OK: changelogs
  OK: tags
  OK: BuildRoot tag
  OK: clean buildroot in %install and %clean
  OK: Requires
  OK: BuildRequires
  OK: summary and description
  OK: encoding
  OK: documentation
  N/A: compiler flags (program written in OCaml)
  N/A: debuginfo (program written in OCaml)
  N/A: devel packages
  OK: requiring base package
  N/A: shared libraries (dllpycaml_stubs.so is not a normal library)
  OK: no static libraries
  OK: no duplication of system libraries
  OK: rpath deleted
  N/A: config files
  N/A: initscripts
  N/A: desktop files
  OK: macros
  N/A: locale files
  OK: timestamps
  OK: parallel make not used for a reason
  N/A: scriptlets
  N/A: conditional deps
  OK: non-relocatable package
  OK: file and directory ownership
  N/A: users and groups
  N/A: web apps
  OK: no conflicts
  OK: no kernel modules
  OK: nothing in /srv
  OK: not bundling multiple projects
  !!! BAD !!!: Patch0 has no comment about its purpose and upstream status.
  OCaml-specific guidelines:
    OK: binary stripped, bytecode not stripped
    OK: compiled binary prefered to bytecode
    OK: tests for native compiler
OK: Meets Licensing Guidelines.
OK: License (GPLv2) tag matches the actual license.
OK: The license file included in %doc.
OK: Spec file written in American English.
OK: Source matches upstream. sha1sum: 3457c54a8e13e129a1c514debd6c9e7d41abf9d9 
coccinelle-0.1.5.tgz
OK: Builds in Koji on all archs.
OK: No duplicates in %files.
OK: File permissions correct, defattr used properly.
OK: Code or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation in a separate subpackage.
OK: Program works even without %doc.
N/A: Headers in -devel.
N/A: pkconfig files.
N/A: Library with a suffix.
OK: Subpackages require the base package using full-versioned dependencies.
OK: No .la files.
OK: Does not own files or dirs already owned by other packages.
OK: Filenames are valid UTF-8.


Summary:

Please add a comment for Patch0 explaining why the patch is needed and what its
upstream status is.

The Packaging Guidelines recommend using *-doc as the documentation package
name. Yours is named *-docs. Consider changing it. *-docs is not unusual, but
*-doc is a bit more common:
yum list \*-doc | wc -l
177
yum list \*-docs | wc -l
69


None of these two issues are blockers and they are easy to fix before you
import to CVS.

I approve the package.

-- 
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.