[Bug 251019] Review Request: lshw - Hardware lister

[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: lshw - Hardware lister


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=251019


wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2007-08-13 18:48 EST -------
Official review (not final yet!)
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on:all available archs, see
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101050
 [x] Rpmlint output: no output
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [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.
     License type: GPLv2 [see issue 1]
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: See issue 2
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
     Arches excluded:
     Why:
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [?] Latest version is packaged. See issue 3
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101050 :
devel/ i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:devel/i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64
 [?] Package functions as described. See issue 4
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===
1. I am not sure which license is used by the program. The Copying file mentions
the GPLv2 or later clauses,which would mean that the correct tag is GPLv2+.
However I might misinterpretate it, so Lyonel, please assist and let us know
what is the intended licensing scheme.
2. The source URL included was not accesible, the site seemed to be down at the
moment of the review
3. The file named "Changes" references a later version of the source. As the
site for upstream was not accessible, I could not check
4. I will verify this a bit later.
5. Please use separate files for the pam and desktop files. Creating them in the
spec is technically OK, but is prone to errors, while using separate files
allows better time/version/MD5 checking
6. (pedantic, feel free to ignore): Please verify if "make" and "make gui" are
both needed. I cannot test now, but at the first glance I think that "make gui"
is enough, it will build everything.

=== Final Notes ===
The package is in excellent shape. Once we clarify the license tag and I can
verify against upstream sources, I will do a test run and approve. I would
appreciate if meanwhile you would implement a solution to issue 5 above.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.