[Bug 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Mar 7 23:00:37 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=570424
--- Comment #3 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org> 2010-03-07 18:00:31 EST ---
$ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli.spec
transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The no-buildroot-tag warning can be ignored since you actually use it to
install
the files.
$ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli.spec
transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
The first warning can and should be solved by adding 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' at
the beginning of the %install section. For second warning, see above.
$ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli-0.5.5-2.20100303git.fc12.noarch.rpm
transmission-remote-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses
-> nurses, curses, n curses
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Guess ncurses actually is spelled correctly. ;)
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
[x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: see above
binary RPM: see above
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
License: GPLv3+
[-] License file is included in %doc.
[x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
[x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
SHA1SUM of Source: 52873f09c773101e3ef982d5406205ae878b3c33
[x] Package compiles successfully
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
[-] Specfile handles locales properly
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
[-] Package owns directorys it creates
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
[x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
[x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
[x] Macros are consistently used
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
[x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
[-] Header files are in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries are in a -static package
[-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
[-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
[-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
[-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
[-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!] %{buildroot} is removed at beginning of %install
[-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[!] Package contains latest upstream version
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] non-English translations for description and summary
[!] Package builds in mock
Tested on: F12/x86_64; see my note concerning README.md below
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
tested build with koji
[x] Program runs
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
[-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required
Issues to point out:
* You should write down in your ChangeLog what you actually changed in the
package or rather in the specfile
* The installation of the README.md is not okay yet. The file actually would
get
installed in /, which obviuously is not the right place for documentation
files.
Seems I forgot the important thing in my suggestion before, sorry for that.
(It really was a 'quick note' it seems).
This one will be even better:
install -Dpm 644 %{SOURCE1}
%{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md
Note you will also have to change the line in %files section accordingly:
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md
* While checking the sha1sum I noted there were some changes on the code just
today, maybe you want to update the file and the release tag accordingly
then?
* The release number should always begin with 0. For example a full version
string
should be something like 0.5.5-0.20100303git. See [1] for the guidelines
about
that. The principle you are following at preset is the one for post-releases,
but there weren't any releases before. Basically, the guideline which
concerns
to pre-release packages should be applied here. But, I guess there never will
be a release after this "pre-release", since the sources just can be obtained
from the git repository. I won't be that strict and would approve your
package
also when you're staying at increasing the release number.
Please fix at least the first two issues and I will approve your package then.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
--
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