[Bug 663018] Review Request: gnome-guitar - A small suite of applications for the guitarist

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=663018

--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-01-11 05:41:54 EST ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gnome-guitar-*
gnome-guitar.x86_64: E: no-binary
gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

^^^ This is a mono package - it does installs bytecode into arch-dependent
locations.

gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gconf/schemas/libgnomeguitar.schemas

^^^ gconf data must not use  (noreplace) so it's ok too.

gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-scale
gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-chord

^^^ It's Ok too. Still no man-pages for these binaries.

gnome-guitar-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config ->
con fig, con-fig, configure

^^^ False positive. Should be ignored.

gnome-guitar-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

^^^ No documentation for this sub-package. So should be ignored too,

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
work ~: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines. Citing from
previous review: "upstream has slightly different name: gnome-guitar_cs, but
according to the NamingGuidelines it is possible to change it e.g. if the
original name uses wrong characters or would be somehow strange ;-) - ubuntu
also already named the package without _cs"

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. 
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz*
5b411154ff9a5445ddaec03bdc787a0067fc3e07c978dfc3560de2667f76f558 
gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz
5b411154ff9a5445ddaec03bdc787a0067fc3e07c978dfc3560de2667f76f558 
gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime
requirement added.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
>> + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.

- The package MUST depend on hicolor-icon-theme due to dependency on
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps directory. Perhaps some runtime dependency
picks it up during installation process. Otherwise you MUST add explicit
"Requires: hicolor-icon-theme".

Actually I believe that it's a generally good idea to list all such
dependencies explicitly disregarding of whether underlying dependent packages
pull them into installation chain. So I advice you to add "Requires:
hicolor-icon-theme".

+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Ok, so here is a summary - please, comment the situation with
hicolor-icon-theme (either prove that some underlying package from this
package's dependency chain will install it, or explicitly add it as the
Requires) and I'll finish the review.

-- 
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.