[Bug 806093] Review Request: glade - User Interface Designer for GTK+ and GNOME

[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=806093

Rui Matos <tiagomatos at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Rui Matos <tiagomatos at gmail.com> 2012-04-13 09:19:14 EDT ---
Here's a more formal review and it actually caught a problem:

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
glade.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided glade3
glade.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/glade-3.12.0/COPYING.LGPL
glade.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/glade-3.12.0/COPYING.GPL
glade.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glade-previewer
glade.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glade
glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/gladeui/glade-accumulators.c
glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/src/glade-close-button.h
glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/src/glade-close-button.c
glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/gladeui/glade-clipboard.c
glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/plugins/gtk+/glade-fixed.c
glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/gladeui/glade-builtins.c
glade-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided glade3-libgladeui-devel
glade-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided glade3-libgladeui
glade-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/glade-libs-3.12.0/COPYING.LGPL
glade-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/glade-libs-3.12.0/COPYING.GPL
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 5 warnings.

+ Rpmlint warnings/errors are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  bc743c2b94b674770b67cbc0c90fb3eb  glade-3.12.0.tar.xz
  bc743c2b94b674770b67cbc0c90fb3eb  glade-3.12.0.tar.xz.upstream
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
+ The spec file handles locales properly
+ ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
+ Package isn't relocatable
+ Package MUST own all the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
+ Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
+ Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
+ Proper .desktop file handling
! Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages

%doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/

This is taking ownership of both

/usr/share/gtk-doc
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html

which doesn't look right. Instead the -devel package should require gtk-doc I
believe. Hmmm, and now that I look at it, the build.log says:

 Build Reference Manual:  no

but here it is being installed. Sounds like an upstream bug, but gtk-doc should
be added to the BuildRequires too and maybe explicitly enable gtk-doc in
%configure.

+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

-- 
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.