[Bug 438126] Review Request: konq-plugins - Additional plugins that interact with konqueror
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 9 00:33:48 UTC 2008
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: konq-plugins - Additional plugins that interact with konqueror
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438126
wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2008-04-08 20:33 EST -------
Package Review
==============
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: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:
W: patch-not-applied Patch2: konq-plugins-4.0.1-icons.patch
-> Sebastian ? Should this patch be applied ?
binary RPM:
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/uachanger/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/uachanger/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/domtreeviewer/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/domtreeviewer/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/fsview/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/fsview/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/validators/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/validators/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/dirfilter/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/dirfilter/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/babel/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/babel/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/imgallery/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/imgallery/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/webarchiver/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/webarchiver/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/crashes/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/crashes/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/khtmlsettings/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
konq-plugins.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/konq-plugins/khtmlsettings/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
-> acceptable for a KDE package
[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.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2+
License tag: GPLv2+
[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.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package:not available, source is a svn checkout.
Running diff on the individual files mostly match. There are however 24
different source and graphic files and 864 different translation files. All
differences seem to be due to svn updates.
I will rely on Sebastian's judgment over the version to be shipped in Fedora.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] 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.
[-] 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.
not a problem, the package uses svn version 4.0.2, meanwhile 4.0.3 has been
released. As stated above, I rely on Sebastian to pick the best release to be
shipped in Fedora.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:koji scratch build
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. Not all the plugins are using the same license and they are delivered as
separate libraries. Therefore I think that the correct license tag is "GPLv2+
and LGPLv2+" (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ , "Multiple licensing
situations", answer A3)
2. The autorefresh plugin has no license specified. IANAL, but I am almost
certain this has to be clarified before including it in Fedora
3. One patch is included in the src.rpm but not applied. Maybe you could either
drop it, use it or add a note mentioning why is it included but not used ?
================
*** APPROVED *** but please fix the license tag before commit
================
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list