[Bug 514310] Review Request: FUR - Mount a Windows CE based device on your Linux file 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=514310





--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-07-29 07:11:08 EDT ---
I see the only blocker issue so far - missing "Requires: fuse". The package
"fuse" (due to different licensing terms is splitted to fuse and fuse-libs, but
rpm can pick up only fuse-libs automatically.

Also, I suggest to shorten spec a little - you may replace

mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
install -p -m 755 Fur $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/Fur

by the single line ("install" utility can create directories):

install -D -p -m 755 Fur $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/Fur

Note the "-D" switch. Ok, here is my 

REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent.

[petro at Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint FUR-0.4.6-1.fc11.ppc.rpm 
FUR.ppc: W: invalid-license GPL
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco ppc]

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec .

+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (except few issues, noted
above).

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .

- The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
(GPLv2)

+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum FUR-0.4.6.tar.gz*
76688e4b208e33d72e53c0f7dcc59534  FUR-0.4.6.tar.gz
76688e4b208e33d72e53c0f7dcc59534  FUR-0.4.6.tar.gz.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1562071

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.

Please take care of issues. mentioned by me, and I'll finish my review.

-- 
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.