[Bug 461429] Review Request: zsync - Incremental file-transfer program without special server

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461429


Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|debarshi.ray at gmail.com      |fedora at christoph-wickert.de




--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2008-10-25 11:41:57 EDT ---
@ Debarshi:
Sorry for "stealing" your review, but I promised to finish John's pre-review
for educational purposes before I sponsor him. I hope you don't mind.

@ John:
Sorry I missed your review because you CC'ed me after you did it. Most things
look good so far, nevertheless here is a complete re-review. Here we co

REVIEW FOR 180523f1a837f61076563cef5929f72d  zsync-0.5-1.fc9.src.rpm
FIX - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/zsync-*
zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Although this is minor please fix with iconv as John said in comment #1

OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines
    - the package builds against the zlib in the source, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries
    - The timestamp of the source is no preserved, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
    - NEWS is missing from %doc

OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (Artistic
License v2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines
FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the
actual license. Should be "Artistic 2.0+" instead of "Artistic clarified"
(+ comes from the "or any later version..."-statement in the headers of the
sources)

OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license in its own file,
and it is included in %doc
OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
md5sum 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
OK - MUST: The package has no known ExcludeArches
OK - MUST: No build dependencies except for those from the exceptions section
of the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: No locales that need to be handled with %find_lang
OK - MUST: No shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, no need to call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (only
%{_docdir}/zsync-0.5)
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly, %files section includes a
%defattr(...) line
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
FIX - MUST: The package does not consistently use macros. Use 
    http://zsync.moria.org.uk/download/zsync-%{version}.tar.bz2 as SourceURL
    because then you only need to change the version tag on updates

OK - MUST: The package contains code, no permissable content
OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
OK - MUST: No header files that need to be in a -devel package
OK - MUST: No static libraries that need a -static package
OK - MUST: Packages does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files must, no need to
require pkgconfig
OK - MUST: The Package does not contain any .la libtool archives
OK - MUST: No GUI application, no need for a %{name}.desktop file
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages
OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install
OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are be valid UTF-8
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described
OK - SHOULD: The package contains the latest stable release of the application

NEEWSWORK

Please fix all issued and then I will approve the package.

-- 
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.