[Bug 500074] Review Request: libplist - Library for manipulating Apple Binary and XML Property Lists

[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=500074


Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bnocera at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |bnocera at redhat.com




--- Comment #4 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com>  2009-05-11 09:29:05 EDT ---
REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent:

libplist-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libplist-python.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/python/site-packages/libplist/_PList.so
libplist-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation

I guess the "no-documentation" ones can be ignored.
You should also use the python_sitelib macro, as the module should live in
/usr/lib64/python2.5/...

+ 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.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file must matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.

For the sub-packages, I'd rather have:
Development files for %{name}, <insert short description>.

Similar for the python sub-package.

+ 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:

$ sha1sum libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 
bdcaff582eaf82910df580631cd1a07f22b351ca  libplist-0.12.tar.bz2
bdcaff582eaf82910df580631cd1a07f22b351ca  ../SOURCES/libplist-0.12.tar.bz2

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (see koji log above).
+ 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 permissable content.
+ No large documentation files.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ The library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Not a GUI 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 rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

I think the -python sub-package is missing a python requires. Rest looks good.

-- 
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.