[Bug 509744] Review Request: solang - A Photo Manager for GNOME

[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=509744





--- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com>  2009-07-09 00:54:07 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
See Below - License (GPLv3+)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package has a correct %clean section. 
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content. 
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. 
See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. 
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
OK - No rpmlint output. 
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin

Issues: 

1. Pick one of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use that consistently. 

2. The Source url is ok, but might be better to list the savanna download: 
http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases-noredirect/solang/Solang-0.2.tar.gz
In fact it seems the link you have is giving a 404 currently and the savannah 
site doesn't have the 0.2 version. ;( Check with upstream? 
Ah, your version is a prerelease checkout? 
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
You will need to explain in a comment how to do that exact checkout. 

3. The License seems to be GPLv3+. No need to ship a copy of COPYING.GPLv2 I
wouldn't think. 

4. No need to package the "INSTALL" doc. It's generic and you are taking care
of 
the install for the user. 

5. Not a blocker, but the %{__rm} and other macros are not very useful IMHO. 
You're welcome to use them, but typing an extra 5 characters and making the
spec
less readable doesn't seem worth it to me. 

6. You need to own the %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/ and %{_datadir}/%{name}/ui/
directories. 
Either remove the /* from them so rpm globs the dir too, or add %dir entries
for them.

-- 
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.