[Bug 226455] Merge Review: system-config-date

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Mar 20 04:57:39 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: system-config-date


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226455


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-03-20 00:57 EST -------
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
See below - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
4 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Some of the translation files say:
po/lt.po:# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
Would be nice to say "system-config-date" there instead of PACKAGE?

2. Since redhat/fedora is upstream for this package, can you add
a note as suggested in:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-413e1c297803cfa9de0cc4c56f3ac384bff5dc9e

3. Please use one of the preferred buildroots, such as:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

4. The desktop file is missing a valid Main Category, see:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
Suggest: System or Settings be added.
Without this, this tool shows up under a "Other" menu in Xfce.

5. Why are you manually setting the mode of the man pages and pam files?
Are they not installing with the correct mode?

6. Should add a
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
to the top of the %install section.

7. Are the Obsoletes still needed?
Obsoletes: timetool
Obsoletes: dateconfig
Obsoletes: timeconfig
Obsoletes: redhat-config-date

8. Is the "Conflicts: firstboot <= 1.3.26" needed?
If it still is, couldn't it be converted to a:
"Requires: firstboot => 1.3.26" instead?

9. The "Requires: python2" should probibly just be removed?
The pygtk2-libglade pulls in python.

10. rpmlint says:

a)
W: system-config-date incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.90 1.8.90-1.fc7

This is probibly due to missing the version in many of the changelog entries.

b)
E: system-config-date tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: system-config-date tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: system-config-date non-utf8-spec-file system-config-date.spec

Suggest: The spec file doesn't seem to be UTF8.
Perhaps run iconv on the spec and check it in again to fix?

c)
E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided timetool
E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided dateconfig
E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided timeconfig
E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-date
W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes timetool
W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dateconfig
W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes timeconfig
W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-config-date

See point 7

d)
E: system-config-date file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/system-config-date/ntp.template

Suggest: You can't have config marked files in datadir.
Either don't mark it as config, or move it to somewhere else?

e)
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/timezone_gui.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/dateBackend.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/timezoneBackend.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/scdMainWindow.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/zonetab.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/Clock.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/timezone_map_gui.py
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/system-config-date.glade
E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/date_gui.py

Suggest: All of these should be mode 644 since they are just imported by the
main program? No need for them to be executable.

f)
E: system-config-date no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install

See point 6.

11. 4 outstanding bugs. None of them look to be packaging related, but you
might check them over and see if any can be closed while doing the rest of
the cleanup for this review. 


-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list