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: procbench - Multiplatform information tool and CPU 
benchmark for x86 procs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457492


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-08-01 14:38 EST -------
Review

========
[+]     source files match upstream:
                2aaba7be4ecfe81e4349b7a1be7899c300faeaca
[+]     package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[-]     specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros 
consistently:
                Use "ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64" instead of BuildArch
[+]     dist tag is present.
[+]     build root is correct.
                 (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} 
-n) is the
recommended value, but not the only one)
[+]     license field matches the actual license.
[+]     license is open source-compatible.
[+]     license text included in package.
[+]     latest version is being packaged.
[+]     BuildRequires are proper.
[-]     compiler flags are appropriate:
                It does not use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
[+]     %clean is present.
[-]     package builds in mock:
                does not due to the BuildArch vs ExclusiveArch issue, see above.
[+]     package installs properly.
[-]     debuginfo package looks complete:
                no due to wrong CFLAGS usage.
[+]     rpmlint is silent.
[-]     owns the directories it creates.
                please own "%{_datadir}/%{name}/" (just removing the * after it 
should do it)
[+]     doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[-]     no duplicates in %files.
[+]     file permissions are appropriate.
[+]     no scriptlets present.
[+]     code, not content.
[+]     documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+]     %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

=======

Summary:

1) Use ExclusiveArch
2) Use proper CFLAGS
3) Fix the ownership issue

And I will approve it (rest looks good).

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to