[Bug 757870] Review Request: sweeper - Clean unwanted traces the user leaves on the system

[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=757870

Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2011-11-28 17:41:33 EST ---
REVIEW FOR 646c961a3bcdbf42a42a7186ea48c8ea  sweeper-4.7.80-1.fc16.src.rpm


MUST items

FIX - MUST: rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/sweeper-*
sweeper.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
sweeper.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.7.80/src/sweeper-4.7.80.tar.bz2 <urlopen
error ftp error: 550 Failed to change directory.>
sweeper.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/applications/kde4/sweeper.desktop
sweeper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sweeper
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

Source URL needs to be fixed, the rest is ok. The desktop files are executable
on purpose.
The macro-in-comment warning is caused by the  commented out URL line; remove
if it not going to be used anymore.

OK - MUST: package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package in the format %{name}.spec
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: LGPLv2+
FIX - MUST: License field in the package spec file does not match the actual
license: License is LGPLv2+ but license field is GPLv2+
FIX - MUST: source package includes the text of the license in its own file but
that file is not included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec file is written in American English
OK - MUST: spec file for the package is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL by
md5 b7cd188ee84e9900554d382683a7ef08
OK - MUST: package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
OK - MUST: spec file handles locales properly using %find_lang
N/A - MUST: package (or subpackage) stores shared library files in the dynamic
linker's default paths and call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - MUST: package does not bundle copies of system libraries
OK - MUST: package is not designed to be relocatable
OK - MUST: package owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly
OK - MUST: package consistently use macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: header files are in -devel package
N/A - MUST: static libraries are in -static package
N/A - MUST: library files with a suffix are in -devel package
N/A - MUST: -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
OK - MUST: package does not contain any .la libtool archives
OK - MUST: package contains a GUI applications and includes a %{name}.desktop
file that is properly validated with desktop-file-validate in the %install
section
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
OK - MUST: all filenames in the package are valid UTF-8


SHOULD items

N/A - SHOULD: source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, query upstream to include it
N/A - SHOULD: description and summary sections should contain translations for
supported Non-English languages, if available
OK - SHOULD: package builds in mock
OK - SHOULD: package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
OK - SHOULD: package functions as described
N/A - SHOULD: scriptlets are sane: No scriptlets used
N/A - SHOULD: subpackages other than devel require the base package using a
fully versioned dependency
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files are in -devel package
OK - SHOULD: package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
N/A - SHOULD: package contains man pages for binaries/scripts


OTHER items

OK - latest (un)stable version packaged
FIX - source URL invalid
OK - compiler flags ok
OK - debuginfo complete
N/A - package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) files and has 'Requires: pkgconfig'.


ISSUES

- Fix the license tag
- Include COPYING.LIB in package
- desktop-file-validate should be in %install not in %check
- package requires dbus-launch, but I am nut sure there is an indirect
dependency on dbus-x11 already. Consider adding a direct one.


NOTES

- %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} is the same as %setup -q
- consider adding a %clean section and a %defattr line for compatibility with
older versions of rpm


Please fix the issues and consider the 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.