[Bug 601115] Review Request: lockfile-progs - safely lock and unlock files

[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=601115

Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 2010-08-22 10:35:39 EDT ---
Looks good. You don't need BuildRoot: anymore so that can be removed. Other
than that APPROVED

+ rpmlint output

$ rpmlint lockfile-progs.spec lockfile-progs-0.1.15-2.fc14.src.rpm
lockfile-progs-0.1.15-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
lockfile-progs-debuginfo-0.1.15-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
lockfile-progs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblockfile ->
blockbusting, blockbuster, Blockbuster
lockfile-progs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblockfile ->
blockbusting, blockbuster, Blockbuster
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ latest version packaged

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  abfcda83a1868073673f4d78066b8f8a  lockfile-progs_0.1.15.tar.gz
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
  Permissions on files must be set properly 
+ %defattr line
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime 
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
+ Package should have man files

-- 
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.