[Bug 476435] Review Request: sugar-record - Recording tool for Sugar

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jul 18 09:54:51 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=476435





--- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-07-18 05:54:49 EDT ---
An initial review. Mostly looks good. Just some rpmlint bits to cleanup as you
previously mentioned.

+ rpmlint output

rpmlint sugar-record-64-1.fc11.src.rpm sugar-record-64-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
sugar-record.spec 
sugar-record.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-record.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-record.x86_64: E: no-binary
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.h
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.c
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.h
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/ChangeLog
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/NEWS
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/README
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/AUTHORS
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.c
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c
sugar-record.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings.

For the zero length doc files just remove them.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  920060cf3238d457691de659c12c25b2edc5fca2  Record-64.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
? header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list