[Bug 497525] Review Request: gnome-applet-bubblemon - Bubbling Load Monitoring Applet for the GNOME Panel

Wed Apr 29 21:22:13 UTC 2009

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=497525

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request:             |Review Request:
                   |bubblemon-gnome - Bubbling  |gnome-applet-bubblemon -
                   |Load Monitoring Applet for  |Bubbling Load Monitoring
                   |the GNOME Panel             |Applet for the GNOME Panel

--- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-04-29 17:22:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> - gettext (where I decided to follow the suggestions in the Packaging
> Guidelines), and

Ok, didn't remember that

> - the conversion of the two manpages (languages sv and hu) since they are
> already included by the upstream maintainer in the upcoming next release and
> these files have a small target audience which should have the used character
> encoding anyway.

Ok, I guess we should trust the translators here. Hope it gets fixed upstream
though.

(In reply to comment #6)
> This is a valid comment. I'm only wondering why the generated template spec
> file does not include the part INSTALL="install -p".

Some Makefiles already use the -p option by default, but not this one. Others
don't understand the INSTALL parameter and will fail.

REVIEW FOR gnome-applet-bubblemon-2.0.13-3.fc10.src.rpm

OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
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.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 0f0e72376c112126f0b0d1487ac7c57c
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all
archs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1321531
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. (None)
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: The package contains a Gnome panel plugin, whcih needs no
desktop-file-install
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
FAIL - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock on F-10, but not F-11 and F-12
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.

Issues
- mock build for F-11 and F-12 fails, see 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1329436
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1329461

- SourceURL not found, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source
We need a downloadable URL in the Source0 tag, use spectool to verify.
- Minor: When renaming the package you forgot the comment at the head of the
spec

Regarding your sponsorship: Do you have any other packages or have you
participated in other reviews?

-- 
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.