[Bug 753517] Review Request: hoard - scalable memory allocator

[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=753517

Troy Dawson <tdawson at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tdawson at redhat.com

--- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson <tdawson at redhat.com> 2012-01-10 17:28:56 EST ---
This is an informal review.
Although I've built rpm's for many years, I'm new to Fedora's build process. 
So this isn't a formal review, but maybe it will make it easier for the next
reviewer.

--------------
Overall Notes:
--------------
You have the version as 371, which corresponds with the tarball that from
upstream.
The problem is that upstream calls the version 3.7.1.
I would suggest you go with having the dots in the version, and perhaps have a
variable for the tarball numbering.
If you don't, you are going to get bitten if any but the first number get's up
to 10.  Example: version 3.10.1 would then be 3101, which would be higher than
version 4.1.1, 411.

If it was me, I'd add a variable like tarversion at the top

%define tar_version 371

  Then change

Version: 371
  to
Version: 3.7.1

  and

Source0:
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~emery/hoard/hoard-3.7.1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
  to
Source0:
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~emery/hoard/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{tar_version}.tar.gz

  and

%setup -q
  to
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{tar_version}

--------------
Review MUSTS:
--------------
NOTE: These are on both the spec file for release 2 and release 3 except where
noted.

rpmlint output - Already done

Package name - OK

Spec file matches base package - OK

License must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines - OK

License in spec must match actual license - OK

License file include in %doc (If a separate file) - Not in release 2, but I see
you are putting it in release 3

Spec file written in American English - OK

Spec file legible - OK

Tar ball matches upstream - OK

Package successfully builds binary RPMs - OK

Build dependancies listed - OK

If shared library files - ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun -
release 2 - NO, release 3 - Yes

System libraries not bundled into rpm - OK

No duplicate files - OK

Permissions on files set correctly - OK

Macro use must be consistant - OK

Must contain code or permissible content - OK

Large documentation files go in a -doc subpackage - Not in release 2, but I see
you are putting it in release 3

Anything marked at %doc cannot affect runtime application - OK (for version 3)

At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK

All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 - OK


--------------
Review MUSTS:
--------------
NOTE: These are on both the spec file for release 2 and release 3 except where
noted.

Have license texts, if not, contact Upstream - in release 3

Test that the package builds in mock - tested on release 2

Should compile and build on all supported architectures - release 2 does,
haven't tested on release 3.

Package should function as described - Haven't tested

Scriptlets must be sane - OK

-- 
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.