[Bug 211718] Review Request: thewidgetfactory - A tool for previewing widgets

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: thewidgetfactory - A tool for previewing widgets
Alias: thewidgetfactory

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211718


peter at thecodergeek.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NOTABUG




------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com  2006-10-21 04:21 EST -------
Hi, Luya. Ok, here we go. :)

** MUST items **

GOOD: rpmlint on the source RPM is silent
The binary RPM gives one error:
  E: thewidgetfactory standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
See the Blockers section below for more information.

GOOD: Timestamps in the source appear to be preserved.

GOOD: Package complies with the NamingGuidelines

GOOD: The spec file is named appropriately, in the form "%{name}.spec" 

GOOD: License is open-source compatible (GPL), and the License field in the spec
file correctly notes this.

GOOD: A copy of the license is included in the package (COPYING, in %doc)

GOOD: The spec is written in American English, and is clear and legible.

GOOD: The source tarball included in the SRPM matches that of upstream.
  $ md5sum thewidgetfactory-*.tar.gz
  60175721233c6f265326fcdc0334c269  thewidgetfactory-0.2.1-srpm.tar.gz
  60175721233c6f265326fcdc0334c269  thewidgetfactory-0.2.1-upstream.tar.gz

GOOD: The package successfully builds in mock (FC6/x86)

GOOD: All necessary BuildRequires listed. (Probably a bit simpler than many
other packages, since there is only one. ^_^) 

GOOD: No duplicate files listed in %files.

GOOD: The spec contains a %clean section, which invokes a single "rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" command.

GOOD: Usage of macros in the spec is consistent.

GOOD: The package contains code, and no prohibited content.

GOOD: Files marked as %doc do not affect the program at runtime if not present.

GOOD: Package contains no .la libtool archives.


** SHOULD items **

GOOD: A copy of the license (GPL) is included in the tarball from upstream
("COPYING").

GOOD: The package appears to build properly on all supported architectures that
I was able to test (built in an FC6/x86 Mock chroot, and is currently chugging
through an FC5/x86 Mock build, which I expect to succeed).

GOOD: The software contained in the binary package runs as described, with no
noticable errors (FC6/x86).


** Not Applicable **
N/A: The package does not require ExcludeArch semantics.

N/A: The package does not require %find_lang semantics, since it installs no
locales.

N/A: The package does not require %post/%postun calls to /sbin/ldconfig, since
it installs no shared libraries. 

N/A: Package is not relocatable.

N/A: There is no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed.

N/A: No header files, shared or static library files, so no -devel subpackage is
needed.

N/A: The package contains no pkgconfig (.pc) files.

N/A: The package does not use translations, so no translated %description or
Summary tag is available.

N/A: No scriplets are used.

N/A: No subpackages exist, so worries about fully-versioned Requires for those
are not present.


** Blockers **

BAD: The application includes a GUI interface, but no .desktop file for that
application. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop on
the wiki for more information.) If the source from upstream does not have one,
as it seems for this package, please create one yourself and include it as a
separate Source in the RPM. (Remember, then, to add the desktop-file-install
scriptlet to the %install section of the spec file, and add desktop-file-utils
as a BuildRequires for this script call. Also, you'll need to add the generated
.desktop file to your %files listing.)

BAD: The package should not own %{_bindir}, which is owned by the filesystem
package. Unless there is good reason for such ownership to be shared, this
should be changed in the %files to only list the specific binary within that
directory (such as "%{_bindir}/twf").

--

Those are the only two blockers I can see in this. Fix those, and I'll approve
the package for importing into CVS.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.