[Bug 226097] Merge Review: linux-atm

[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=226097

Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad at redhat.com> 2010-01-26 11:30:08 EST ---
MUST items:
[YES] rpmplint is silent
[YES] Package meets naming guidelines.
Comment #1

[YES] Package meets packaging guidelines.
[YES] Spec file matches base package name.
[YES] License file is present, matching with spec file.
[YES] Licensing Guidelines are met.
Comment #2

[YES] Spec file is legible and in American English.
[YES] Sources match upstream.
[YES] Package builds OK.
[?] BuildRequires is correct.
Comment #3

[YES] ldconfig is called in %post and %postun.
[YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries.
[YES] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[YES] Package has no duplicity in %files.
[YES] Permission on files are set properly.
Comment #4

[YES] %clean section is correct.
[YES] Spec file has consistant macro usage.
[YES] Package is code or permissable content.
[YES] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[YES] Header files are in -devel (-debuginfo) package.
[NO] Static libraries are in -static package
Comment #5

[?] -devel requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
Comment #6

[YES] No versioned libraries in -devel package.
[YES] No .la libtool archives.
[YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own.
[YES] Package has rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install.
[YES] Spec file is valid UTF-8.

Should items:
[NO] Package builds in mock.
Comment #3

[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets.
[YES] Package contains man pages.


**Comments:
1) I suggest adding %{?dist} to Release tag.

2) Licensing is mess, but at least it looks like that LGPLv2+ can be
generalized to LGPL+ (no explicit version declaration in source code).

3) In order to build in mock, I had to patch spec file:
-BuildRequires: glibc-kernheaders >= 2.4-9.1.88
+BuildRequires: glibc-headers >= 2.4-9.1.88

4) Better is to use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root,
root, 0755) - for this package in both cases the resulting permissions seem to
match.

5) There is libatm.a in -devel package.

6) libs-devel: Requires: linux-atm-libs = %{version}
Shouldn't be: Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release} ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.