Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225722
Summary: Merge Review: ElectricFence Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: pmachata@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: ElectricFence
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/ElectricFence/ Initial Owner: pmachata@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ElectricFence
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225722
------- Additional Comments From pmachata@redhat.com 2007-02-07 12:35 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built.
$ rpmlint i386/ElectricFence-2.2.2-21.i386.rpm W: ElectricFence devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libefence.a W: ElectricFence devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libefence.so
These are ok, ElectricFence is actually a development package. Other than that, rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm.
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=225722
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limburgher@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |limburgher@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-06 10:17:03 EDT --- Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
ElectricFence.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ElectricFence-2.2.2.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
I read the spec comments, where does this live now?
ElectricFence.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
Ignore.
ElectricFence.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libefence.so.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation.
Should be fixed if possible.
ElectricFence.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libefence.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
ElectricFence.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libefence.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
These should normally go in -static and -devel, but I think in this case they don't need to.
ElectricFence.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ElectricFence-2.2.2/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
File bug upstream if you like.
ElectricFence.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ef Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
Fix if possible.
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv2 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream
Impossible to determine.
- package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file
So it's mostly just upstream location and shared lib calls exit.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org