[Bug 706359] Review Request: lsx - List executables in a directory tree

Thu Jun 2 13:33:14 UTC 2011

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=706359

Jaromír Cápík <jcapik at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from Jaromír Cápík <jcapik at redhat.com> 2011-06-02 09:33:13 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.

Tested on: fedora-14-x86_64

[x]  Rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint lsx-0.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 
lsx.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) executables -> executable,
executable s, executants
lsx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsx
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint lsx-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint lsx-0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm 
lsx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) executables -> executable, executable
s, executants
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[x]  Package is not relocatable.
[x]  Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot removal
in install section
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

License type: MIT

[x]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

MD5SUM this package    : d48fdce9868b13bf5ef3e7834768f89f
MD5SUM upstream package: d48fdce9868b13bf5ef3e7834768f89f

[x]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:

Arches excluded: -
Why: -

[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]  The spec file handles locales properly -- package requires gettext and
uses find_lang, if applicable
[-]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[-]  All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]  Package does NOT include/bundle any pre-built binaries or libraries, fonts
or other general purpose data
[x]  Changelog present in the spec file and is properly formatted
[x]  Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[x]  All documentation prefixed with %doc
[x]  No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[x]  Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[x]  Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[x]  Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[-]  All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[x]  No config files are located under /usr
[-]  Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript, if applicable
[-]  makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} does
NOT work
[-]  globals used in place of defines
[x]  Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[x]  Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[x]  Final Requires and Provides are sane
[x]  Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time"

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

[x]  Package should preserve files timestamps
[x]  Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio,
diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info,
make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip,
util-linux-ng, which or xz
[x]  Package functions as described.
[-]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]  File based requires are sane.

================
*** 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.