[Bug 602574] Review Request: patchelf - a utility for patching ELF binaries

[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=602574

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2010-08-24 14:17:28 EDT ---
Here's the formal review. Since I couldn't find any further issues, the package
is ready now. 

After having had another look at the packaging guidelines, I noticed that you
should file Bugzilla tickets for the ppc issue (now as the package has been
approved). The corresponding bug numbers should then be added to the spec file.
See [1] for further details.

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
patchelf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables ->
executable, executable s, executants
patchelf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables ->
executable, executable s, executants
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

The spelling errors are false positive and can be ignored.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum patchelf-0.5.tar.bz2*
    c41fc98091d15dc93ba876c3ef11f43c  patchelf-0.5.tar.bz2
    c41fc98091d15dc93ba876c3ef11f43c  patchelf-0.5.tar.bz2.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[X] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture.
    - File two Bugzilla tickets for the ppc and ppc64 issue.
    - Add the corresponding bug numbers to the spec file.

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package. 
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s), ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...

----------------
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.