[Bug 248898] Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries

[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: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898


kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org  2007-07-19 17:11 EST -------
kdelibs 4 fixed now, so here's the review:

MUST Items:
! rpmlint output:
  * W: kdepimlibs no-documentation
  -> At least the license should be included as %doc. (I'll take the blame for 
that one. ;-) )
  * W: kdepimlibs-devel no-documentation
  -> OK, this one is acceptable, but like for Soprano, we should generate 
apidocs for kdelibs and kdepimlibs before the F8 release.
  * W: kdepimlibs-debuginfo 
spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/kdepimlibs-3.91.0/mailtransport/servertest.h
  -> OK, this one is upstream's fault.
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
! spec file name doesn't match base package name, please rename to 
kdepimlibs.spec before import
+ Packaging Guidelines:
  + License LGPL OK, matches actual license
  + No known patent problems
  + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
  + Complies with the FHS
  + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary, 
Description
  + no non-UTF-8 characters
  ! relevant documentation not included
    See "rpmlint output" above.
  + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake macro)
  + debuginfo package is valid
  + no static libraries nor .la files
  + no duplicated system libraries
  + no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the shared objects)
  + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
  + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
  + no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed
  + no timestamp-clobbering file commands
  + _smp_mflags used
  + scriptlets are valid
  + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
  + no conflicts
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
! license not included as %doc (see "rpmlint output" above)
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
  MD5SUM: 978712ededae818f2b9225897684b752
  SHA1SUM: 9bb8202db3a7a5ee968cfb26c24800e3d08103de
+ builds on at least one arch (F8 i386 mock)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ all build dependencies listed in CMakeLists.txt as well as cmake itself are 
listed in BuildRequires
  (However, an additional BuildRequires: doxygen will be needed for 
the -apidocs.)
+ no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't 
apply
+ ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories 
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions set properly
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible
+ no non-code content
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ no %doc files, so no possible issues with %doc files required at runtime
+ all header files in -devel
+ no static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ /usr/lib/*.so symlinks are correctly in -devel
+ /usr/lib/kde4/*.so plugins (NOT symlinks) are correctly NOT in -devel
+ -devel requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ no .la files
+ no GUI programs (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
  But you know my usual nitpick by now. ;-) I recommend a:
  mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  after the:
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  to prevent a potential symlink attack as pointed out by the OpenSUSE folks.
  Though in this case my original packages didn't have it either, so I take 
part of the blame.
  Anyway, it's not required by the guidelines, so this is definitely not a 
blocker.
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items: 
+ license already included upstream
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
+ package builds in mock (Rawhide i386)
* Skipping the "all architectures" test.
+ package functions as expected (at least the F7 version I tested did ;-) )
+ scriptlets are sane
+ no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel 
should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is 
irrelevant
+ no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies

Please fix these before import:
* add at least the license(s) as %doc
* rename the specfile to kdepimlibs.spec
With these changes, the package is APPROVED.

These can be addressed at a later time:
* add BuildRequires: doxygen
* create an -apidocs subpackage

-- 
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.