https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745478
Dan Horák <d...@danny.cz> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Dan Horák <d...@danny.cz> ---
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
OK source files match upstream:
105e4914bc7b9cb29a5b81be51693e7567405478 v0.0.3.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK* license is open source-compatible (LGPLv2 or BSD). License text not
included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/ppc64le).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK* rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK headers in devel subpackage
OK pkgconfig files in devel subpackage
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- the license texts should included in the source archive and then distributed
with the built rpms
- rpmlint output is harmless
libbpf-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation
libbpf-static.ppc64le: W: no-documentation
libbpf.ppc64le: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Libbpf
libbpf.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bpf -> bf, pf, bps
libbpf.ppc64le: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.3-1 ['1:0.0.3-1.fc32',
'1:0.0.3-1']
libbpf.ppc64le: W: no-documentation
libbpf.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Libbpf
libbpf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bpf -> bf, pf, bps
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Two nitpicks
- you can drop the slash from the LIBDIR definition, the "dir" macros start
with a slash
- you can drop the redefinition of OBJDIR in the make_flags, actually it makes
it worse when doing a local "rpmbuild" (it puts files into
/home/dan/rpmbuild/BUILD which isn't cleaned up). It works well for me when the
default is used.
The package is APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
