[Bug 796074] Review Request: numad - NUMA user daemon
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 22 15:52:57 UTC 2012
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=796074
Cole Robinson <crobinso at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |crobinso at redhat.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |crobinso at redhat.com
Flag| |needinfo?(jsynacek at redhat.c
| |om)
--- Comment #2 from Cole Robinson <crobinso at redhat.com> 2012-02-22 10:52:56 EST ---
I'll take this.
Minor issue: there's some trailing whitespace in the spec. Some in the
description and some after %preun
Here's the fedora-review issues output when run on f16:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
Just drop the Buildroot from the spec, maybe it was just added for local test
purposes? If that's the case, setup rpmmacros like
cat ~/.rpmmacros
%_topdir /home/crobinso/src/rpmroot
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
These two aren't required since it doesn't sound like this is heading for EPEL,
rather RHEL proper. These changes may need to be made for RHEL though (not
blocking this review).
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint numad-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm
numad-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Not quite sure what the problem is here
rpmlint numad-0.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
numad.src: W: strange-permission numad1.patch 0600L
making it 644 will probably silence this
numad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: numad-0.5.tar.xz
Not an error per-se, but since you seem to own the fedorahosted git repo,
why not just make a 0.5 tarball and upload it to fedorahosted? See the
FAQ for publishing releases.
https://fedorahosted.org/web/faq
Otherwise since you are doing a git snapshot, you should follow the (more
complex) git naming guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
I'd recommend just cutting an upstream tarball.
numad.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I assume this has to do with systemd unit files, so safe to ignore.
Also, can you provide more info about the patch in the spec file? Why isn't it
upstream? Will it ever be upstream? What are the two difference licenses the
spec comment talks about? Should there be two licenses in the License field?
--
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