[Bug 516515] Review Request: globus-gfork - Globus Toolkit - GFork

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Oct 14 20:05:53 UTC 2009


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=516515





--- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch>  2009-10-14 16:05:52 EDT ---
Review of globus-gfork:

MUST:

no: $ rpmlint globus-gfork.spec ../SRPMS/globus-gfork-0.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/globus-gfork-* 
globus-gfork.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libglobus_gfork.so.0.0.2 exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
globus-gfork-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

The lib-calls-exit should be commented upon at least.

yes: Package name - globus guidelines
yes: Spec File name - globus guidelines
yes: Packaging guidelines
yes: Apache 2.0
yes: .spec ASL 2.0
yes: GLOBUS_LICENSE included.
yes: american english.
yes: Upstream source matches.
$ diff -r --brief globus_gfork-0.2
gt4.2.1-all-source-installer/source-trees/gridftp/gfork/source
Only in globus_gfork-0.2: GLOBUS_LICENSE

which is expected.

yes: builds as per koji build above.
yes: locales not present.
yes: Calls ldconfig appropriate
yes: No system libs included.
yes: not relocatable.
yes: All files and directories created in the package are owned.
yes: files not listed twice.
yes: defattr used everywhere.
yes: Buildroot is removed in %clean.
yes: consistant macros
yes: no large docs.
yes: docs not needed runtime.
yes: headeds in -devel file.
yes: libs correctly in -devel package.
yes: main package is needed by devel package.
yes: no .la files present.
yes: no gui.
yes: does not own files belonging to other packages.
yes: buildroot removed in %install.
yes: utf8


So just the comments on the /etc/gfork.conf and exit 0 from lib.

Steve

-- 
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