[Bug 466974] Review Request: vdr-remote - Extended remote control plugin for VDR

[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=466974


Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpivaini at cs.helsinki.fi> changed:

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




--- Comment #6 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpivaini at cs.helsinki.fi>  2008-10-28 15:25:09 EDT ---
As it's my first review, I'll do a checklist style thing also, just to be sure
I haven't forgotten anything.

- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
  the review
  - OK, no output.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
  - OK, it's also similar to all the other vdr plugins already in Fedora
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec
  - OK
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
  the Licensing Guidelines
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
  license.
- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc
  - OK. README says "Distributed under GPL", so GPL+ is OK, GPLv2 is in %doc as
    COPYING
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English
  - OK, as far as I can judge
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
  unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review
  - OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
  as provided in the spec URL
  - OK
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
  least one supported architecture
  - OK, built as a scratch build on all architectures
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
  - OK, since works in mock and Koji
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly
  - OK
- The shared library file rule doesn't affect a VDR plugin
- Not relocatable
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
  create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
  create that directory
  - OK, the vdr package owns the plugindir and the udev package owns the rule
    dir
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing
  - OK
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
  with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
  a %defattr(...) line
  - OK
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
  %{buildroot}
  - OK
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
  - OK
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
  - OK
- Doesn't contain large documentation files
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
  of the application
  - OK
- Doesn't install any header files
- Has no static libs, .pc files, .so files, -devel package, .la archives, 
  subpackages, file dependencies or scriptlets
- Not a GUI app as such
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
  packages
  - OK
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
  - OK
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
  - OK
- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
  contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
  - OK, none seem to be available upstream
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
  - OK, it does
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
  supported architectures
  - OK, it does, I did a scratch build
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
  - It'd be a bit too cumbersome for me to test this package with my current
    VDR setup. I've used a previous version before and it worked, I believe
    this will work too.

I'd like to note that I'm no expert on udev rules, but I've used similar rules
myself as in Source2 and I believe they should work.

Ville, you mentioned you'll add a comment about the i18ndetect patch. Please
also add comments about the Debian patches and their upstream status if 
upstream or the Debian maintainer replies you. I won't consider this to be a
blocker, though.

Considering that this is my first review, to the best of my knowledge this
package is suitable for Fedora and I will approve it.

-- 
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.