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=754972

Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |749596

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=754972

--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-11-21 08:09:10 EST ---

Package Review ==============

Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated

==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: MUST Package does not contains kernel modules. [ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.

==== Generic ==== [ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the package failed to build because of missing BR [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Missing defattr(....) in %files section [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. Found : Packager: Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com Found : Vendor: Fedora

[!]: MUST Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. (EPEL5) [ ]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/marca/754972/XML-DifferenceMarkup-1.04.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : d753b39fec3c8da3917c35c40d101fef MD5SUM upstream package : d753b39fec3c8da3917c35c40d101fef

[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues: [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the package failed to build because of missing BR [!]: MUST Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Missing defattr(....) in %files section [!]: MUST Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. (EPEL5)

Imho there is only one real problem, build: Try setting LIBS and INC values on the command line, or do whatever it took to install XML::LibXML + make -j4 make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nB7vTj (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nB7vTj (%build) Child returncode was: 1

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=754972

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-11-21 09:52:51 EST --- Sounds good.

APPROVED

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=754972

--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 13:16:28 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).