[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749

Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen at katiska.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |antti.jarvinen at katiska.org



--- Comment #2 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen at katiska.org> ---
Hello Dave,

I don't have permissions to submit your package further but I did a quick
review using a check-list, please find it below. Items that look ok to me are
marked with x, those where I had no clue I have left empty for more
knowledgeable reviewers to check and if there is a fail, it is marked with a
minus sign. 

Only obvious minus is due to lack of %check portion in .spec but I don't know
if it really is applicable to your sw. 

Hope this helps,

--
Antti Järvinen

Checklist:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
     Note: I did not read through ALL the code inside, but, yes, it looks ok. 
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
     Note: f21/amd64
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     During build process? No? After build rpmlint complains only
     about spelling errors in person Names and that is expected, they're
     not in english language. 
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Question: I don't know if this is a stupid assumption but is 
     there build-dependency to package gcc (or gcc-c++ or what is it named?) 
     or is that dependency satisfied via some other dependency? 
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: Well, it does.
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
     Note: at least in resulting RPM the perms look all right to me
[ ]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local


===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
     Note: included
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: if Source0 in spec counts as documentation, answer is yes. 
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[ ]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[ ]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: Buildroot is not present
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component