[Bug 498248] Review Request: viewmol - An open source graphical front end for computational chemistry programs

Sun May 24 21:30:23 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=498248

--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2009-05-24 17:30:22 EDT ---
REVIEW for viewmol-2.4.1-2.fc10.src.rpm  

FIX - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.

rpmlint Downloads/viewmol-2.4.1-2.fc12.i586.rpm 
viewmol.i586: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/viewmol/readdmol.awk
viewmol.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 c88cc5641bffc14d749e9759a1c813ac
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
??? - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
n/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
FIX - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
OK - optflags honored
OK - timestamps preserved

Issues: 
- the mime scriptlet is not sane. There is no way to uninstall the magic bits
- does readdmol.awk really need exec perms?
- does it make sense to package docs and examples in a noarch -doc package
- desktop file lacks categories. I suggest Education;Science;Chemistry;Physics
- there also is another issue with desktop that you could fix.

+ desktop-file-install
--dir=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/viewmol-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386/usr/share/applications
kde/applications/viewmol.desktop
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/viewmol-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386/usr/share/applications/viewmol.desktop:
warning: value "viewmol.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon
name with an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the
Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path

-- 
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.