[Bug 591982] Review Request: batti - Simple battery monitor for the system tray
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu May 27 19:23:17 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=591982
Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking at uos.de
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2010-05-27 15:23:13 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> AFAIK there is no need to select a python version. batti should build both with
> python 2 and 3 so I prefer to make the switch when Fedora finally switches.
> This is easier with a simple "python-devel".
OK, that's fine.
Here's the formal review. I couldn't find any further issues needed to be
addressed. The package looks fine and works as expected.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/batti-*.rpm
batti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US batterymon -> battery,
batterer, batter
batti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US un -> UN, nu, in
batti.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://batti-gtk.googlecode.com/
IncompleteRead(0 bytes read)
batti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US batterymon -> battery,
batterer, batter
batti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US un -> UN, nu, in
batti.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://batti-gtk.googlecode.com/
IncompleteRead(0 bytes read)
batti.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://batti-gtk.googlecode.com/files/batti-0.3.7.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
All warnings are false positive (URLs are valid, spelling is correct)
---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- GPLv2+ according to source file headers
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
- file COPYING present in %doc
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum batti-0.3.7.tar.gz*
f855b28e4bb84fb33565d2668c33e221 batti-0.3.7.tar.gz
f855b28e4bb84fb33565d2668c33e221 batti-0.3.7.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- noarch package
- builds correctly for F-12, F-13 and rawhide
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files ...
- no shared libs
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix ...
- no libs
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package.
- no devel package
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
- no .la files
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
- .desktop file present and valid
[+] .desktop file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] MUST: Python eggs must be built from source.
[+] MUST: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[+] MUST: If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they
must be included in the package.
[.] MUST: When building a compat package, ...
[.] MUST: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) ...
[+] MUST: The gtk icon cache must be updated properly.
[.] SHOULD: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface
should provide egg info.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
- builds in mock
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
- noarch package
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
- seems to work as expected on my notebook
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package.
- no subpackages
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------
--
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