[Bug 749596] Review Request: diffmark - XML diff and merge
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Nov 3 15:14:57 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=749596
Petr Sabata <psabata at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata <psabata at redhat.com> 2011-11-03 11:14:56 EDT ---
Package: diffmark
Version: 0.08
Release: 1.fc15
Sources: diffmark-0.08.tar.gz
Patches: diffmark-0.08-remove_rpath.patch
----------
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-16-x86_64.
Package successfully built in mock, fedora-16-i386.
Package successfully built in koji, dist-rawhide.
MUST items:
[ OK ] Package does NOT include pre-built binaries or libraries
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American english
[ OK ] Package successfully builds on at least one supported primary
architecture
[ -- ] All ExcludeArch tags valid, referencing proper bug reports
[ OK ] Package obeys FHS (with _libexecdir and /srv exceptions)
[ OK ] No errors reported by rpmlint
[ OK ] Changelog present and properly formatted
[ OK ] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags
[ OK ] Source tags are working URLs and sources match upstream or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Requires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] BuildRequires correct or justified otherwise
[ OK ] All file names are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ OK ] All plain text files are in proper UTF-8 encoding
[ -- ] Large documentation files are located in doc subpackage
[ OK ] All documentation prefixed with %doc
[ OK ] Documentation is NOT executable
[ OK ] No files in %doc are needed at run-time
[ OK ] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified
[ -- ] Package uses hardened build (-fPIC, -fPIE) if appropriate
[ OK ] Package generates useful debuginfo packages
[ OK ] Header files are placed in devel subpackage
[ OK ] Unversioned shared libraries are placed in devel subpackage
[ -- ] Pkgconfig files are placed in devel subpackage
[ OK ] Full-versioned Requires of the base package in subpackages
[ OK ] Package calls ldconfig in post and postun sections for all
subpackages, if applicable
[ -- ] Static libraries are provided by static subpackage
[ OK ] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle any system libraries
[ OK ] RPath not used for anything besides internal libraries
[ -- ] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise
[ OK ] No config files are located under /usr
[ -- ] Package contains working systemd unit files and requires systemd-units
[ -- ] All systemd unit files are named according to the Guidelines
[ -- ] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript only as an optional
addition to systemd unit files
[ -- ] If package contains an initscript, it's placed in sysvinit subpackage
[ -- ] A GUI application installs a proper desktop file
[ -- ] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified
otherwise
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros
[ -- ] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
does NOT work
[ -- ] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time
[ -- ] globals used in place of defines
[ -- ] Locales handled correctly -- package requires gettext and uses
find_lang, if applicable
[ -- ] Scriptlets are sane
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable unless justified
[ OK ] Package contains only acceptable code or content
[ OK ] Package owns all the files and directories it creates, installs and/or
uses unless those are already owned by another package
[ OK ] files sections do NOT contain duplicate files except for licenses
[ OK ] Package does NOT cause any conflicts
[ OK ] Package does NOT contain kernel modules
[ OK ] Package does NOT bundle fonts or other general purpose data
[ OK ] Final Requires and Provides are sane
SHOULD items:
[ OK ] The Summary does NOT end with a period
[ OK ] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot
removal in install section
[ OK ] Package should preserve files timestamps
[ OK ] 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
[ OK ] Description does NOT consist of lines longer than 80 characters
[ OK ] Package uses parallel make
[ -- ] In case of a web application, package installs date into /usr/share
instead of /var/www
[ OK ] All patches have a comment or an upstream bug link
[ FAIL ] Package installs manpages for all executables
[ FAIL ] Package contains check section and all tests pass
[ ?? ] Package works as expected
NOTES:
------
Two issues:
1. Missing manpages for executables (not supplied by upstream)
2. The archive bundles a lot of test data; we could/should take advantage of
those although there's no 'test' make target
Those aren't showstoppers. Approving.
--
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