[Bug 683610] Review Request: hxtools - A collection of several tools

[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=683610

--- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-11-23 23:00:40 EST ---
Unless you plan to use this spec file for EPEL also, some elements of the spec
file are not needed: BuildRoot, "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the top of
%install, the %clean script, and %defattr at the top of %files.

Even though autoreconf is in the autoconf package, it can also invoke aclocal
and automake, both of which are in the automake package.  Since automake
Requires autoconf, I suggest using a BR on automake instead of autoconf.  This
isn't just a hypothetical concern; here is a snippet from the mock build log:

+ ./autogen.sh
Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at
/usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 326.
autoreconf: failed to run aclocal: No such file or directory

Legend:
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output:
hxtools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan
hxtools.spec:44: W: macro-in-comment %exclude
hxtools.spec:44: W: macro-in-comment %files
hxtools.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir}
hxtools.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir}
hxtools.spec:48: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
hxtools.spec:49: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Those macros in comments need doubled % signs.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[+] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[=] all build requirements in BuildRequires: maybe need automake, see above
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[N] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: minimal testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

-- 
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.