[Bug 461050] Review Request: tucnak2 - VHF contest logging program

[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=461050


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-11 23:22:21 EDT ---
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.

I believe the license of this program is GPLv2 (only); most of the source files
just say "version 2" with no "or later" clause.

I note that a newer version is out.  I don't think it will significantly effect
the packaging, but you can update if you like and I'll look it over.

Note that the touch call in your recode function is backwards, so you don't
actually preserve the date.  It's not a big deal, but since you went to the
effort....

I wonder about the files in /usr/share/tucnak2.  If they're not actually used
by the problem, would they be better off packaged as documentation?  (Not that
100K of files really matter much, but I guess it's worth asking.)

The desktop file has an error:
  key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing 
  character, fixing

Since this file comes from upstream, I don't really see a need to patch it but
you might want to inform upstream about it.

I installed and ran this and it seemed to work, but I can get it to segfault
repeatably by bringing up a map.  Honestly I have no clue at all how to use the
software so I was just blindly poking keys.  That might be sufficiently
crippling that it should be fixed before importing, but I don't really know.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   16ad9461034b4db7fc14848820f620bf978e523436547c67d6974ea36a730069  
   tucnak2-2.21.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   tucnak2 = 2.21-1.fc11
   tucnak2(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc11
  =
   /usr/bin/perl
   libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
   libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit)
   libftdi.so.1()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgpm.so.2()(64bit)
   libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libhamlib.so.2()(64bit)
   libpng12.so.0()(64bit)
   libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)(64bit)
   libsndfile.so.1()(64bit)
   libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit)
   libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit)
   libutil.so.1()(64bit)
   libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)

* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
o desktop files valid and installed properly (one desktop-file-complaint,
should 
   be reported upstream).

-- 
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.