[Bug 554647] Review Request: wbfs-manager - Manager for Nintendo RAW File System

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jan 28 08:44:50 UTC 2010


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=554647

Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-01-28 03:44:46 EST ---
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSWORK
- Create desktop file in %prep, not in %install.
- IMHO too much empty lines within sections. 
- Use of macros for standard commands is OK, although unnecessary.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
NEEDSWORK
- The naming guidelines clearly indicate that the package name should be
linux-wbfs-manager.
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
- For now.

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NEEDSWORK
- Not all files are GPLv2:

/* Rijndael Block Cipher - rijndael.c

   Written by Mike Scott 21st April 1999
   mike at compapp.dcu.ie

   Permission for free direct or derivative use is granted subject 
   to compliance with any conditions that the originators of the 
   algorithm place on its exploitation.  

*/

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK
- URL not functioning.

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
NEEDSWORK
- Package does not compile.

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A

MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK
- Optimization flags are not used. Using
 make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags}
does the trick.

MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. N/A

MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. ~OK
- Remove the empty %dir line.

MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. NEEDSWORK
- Debuginfo is empty.

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK
- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-).

MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add README to %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A

MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. NEEDSWORK
- Use desktop-file-install to install the desktop file.

MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK
- License not included in tarball.

SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSWORK
- Does not build at all, when it is fixed it builds in mock.

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list