Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |188267
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-14 03:09 EST -------
My review from yesterday got lost with the bugzilla crash:


rpmlint output:

E: openais non-readable /usr/sbin/ais-keygen 0700
E: openais non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/ais-keygen 0700
(required permissions)

W: openais non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec
(not *that* non-standard)

W: openais incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/openais $prog
(daemon and package name are incoherent upstream)

W: openais-devel conffile-without-noreplace-flag 
(is anyone *really* going to edit this file anyway?)

I don't believe any of these are blockers, or even need fixing.

- package and spec file naming OK
- package meets guidelines
- license is BSD, matches spec, text included
- spec file written in ENglish and is legible
- sources match upstream
- builds OK in mock for rawhide (i386)
- buildreqs OK
- no locale-specific data
- shared libraries present in -devel package (only needed for devel)
  ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun for the devel package
- not relocatable
- no directory ownership or permissions issues
- no duplicate files
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is consistent
- code, not content
- documentation volume not excessive
- docs don't affect runtime
- header files properly located in -devel package
- static libraries disabled
- no pkgconfig file
- -devel package has fully-versioned dependency on main package
- no libtool archives included
- not a GUI application, so no desktop file needed
- scriptlets are sane


- package is ExclusiveArch: i386 ppc x86_64 ppc64
  Since this covers all current Fedora Core architectures, why is it present?

- please correct confusing 0.76-1.6 changelog entry

Once these are addressed, I'll be in a position where I'd be happy to approve
this package if it was for Fedora Extras, However, I cannot approve Core
packages, so someone else will need to do that.

Post-review, it was noted that the package failed to build on x86_64 due to
"-fPIC" being missing from CFLAGS, This was to be fixed by a patched Makefile.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to