[Bug 484798] Review Request: xiphos - Bible study and research tool

[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=484798





--- Comment #2 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp at redhat.com>  2009-03-10 08:18:56 EDT ---
Sorry it took me so long to get started on this.

Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this
package.
Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and
fix them anyway in my opinion.
Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed.

Here we go:

- BAD/CHECK: rpmlint on xiphos-3.0.1-1.fc10.src.rpm:

  xiphos.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnomesword
  --> either add version/release or rather (if no package directly depends on
      gnomesword), get rid of it (preferred if possible)

- GOOD: package name according to guidelines
- GOOD: spec file named properly
- BAD: licensing is unclear: source files mention "GPLv2+" (TBH, I haven't
checked all of them), documentation mentions "GPLv2". Both are ok for Fedora,
but please clarify this with upstream.
- BAD: The documentation is licensed under GFDL, please mention this.
- GOOD: license files are shipped as documentation
- GOOD: the spec file is written in American English
- GOOD: the spec file is legible
- BAD: download URL doesn't work, the upstream URL is
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnomesword/xiphos-3.0.1.tar.gz (i.e. not in
the "xiphos" directory)
- GOOD: source tarball is the same as from
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnomesword/xiphos-3.0.1.tar.gz
- GOOD: builds in mock for x86_64/Rawhide
- CHECK: I found some warnings which you should check and eventually fix (and
submit upstream):
  - "suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value": these can be
    either legit (then add parentheses) or typos ("=" instead of "=="), please
    fix
  - "no return statement in function returning non-void", "control reaches end
    of non-void function": surely an omission, please fix
  - "implicit declaration of function '...'": probably headers that weren't
    included. I found that these can cause nasty, hard to debug crashes (see
    #486122 "Unexpected exit from gimp"), so please get these fixed as well.
  - "'...' may be used uninitialized in this function": ditto, please fix
  - "format '...' expects type '...', but argument ... has type '...'":
    may not show symptoms right now, but new compiler versions may break that
    please fix
  - There are other warnings where I'm not sure if the cause problems when
    running the program, perhaps consult with upstream about them (try to build
    with "-Werror" to catch all of them).
- GOOD: all build dependencies listed
- GOOD: uses %find_lang macro for locale files
- PASS: no libraries shipped
- PASS: not relocatable
- GOOD: all shipped directories owned by package, direct dependency or
filesystem
- CHECK: please do or do not append a slash to directories in %files
consistently
- GOOD: no duplicates in %files
- GOOD: permissions on files are set properly
- GOOD: package has a %clean section
- GOOD: package uses macros consistently
- GOOD: the package contains code, not content
- PASS: no large documentation files
- GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime
- PASS: no header files
- PASS: no static libraries
- PASS: no pkgconfig files
- PASS: no libraries included
- PASS: no devel package
- GOOD: no *.la libtool archives
- GOOD: desktop file is installed properly in %install
- BAD: don't apply a vendor tag to the desktop file as this is a new package
- GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages
- GOOD: build root is cleaned at the beginning of %install
- GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8

-- 
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.