[Bug 481536] Review Request: enano - Enano CMS, a php-based modular content management system

[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=481536


David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(ngompa13 at gmail.co
                   |                            |m)




--- Comment #5 from David Nalley <david at gnsa.us>  2009-04-29 22:14:17 EDT ---
[ke4qqq at nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./enano.spec 
./enano.spec: W: no-%build-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

You must at least have the %build section and then put a comment in that
section to make rpmlint shut up. 
I know there is no real building going on - but it will make things cleaner. 

[ke4qqq at nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../SRPMS/enano-1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826.fc10.src.rpm 
enano.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Enano
enano.src: W: no-%build-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



You repeated the name of the package in the summary (and of course the no build
section) Please clean that up - the description generally doesn't need to refer
to the package name itself. 

[ke4qqq at nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/enano-1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826.fc10.noarch.rpm 
enano.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary Enano
enano.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.6-4
['1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826.fc10', '1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826']
enano.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/enano/.htaccess.new
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

If we can fix the description and the build section I think it's good to go
from that particular perspective. 

WRT to the other packages being included: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries

And while your package isn't Java take a look at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software

I tell you this because I also have a web app that I packaged that essentially
had the same problems, and I had to package up the included software that's
separate. 

>From my brief analysis there are at least two packages there that appear to be
directly verbatim from another 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.