[Bug 498413] Review Request: vfrnav - Flight Planning software for flights under Visual Flight Rules (VFR)

[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=498413


Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #13 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se>  2009-05-29 02:01:05 EDT ---
Fedora review vfrnav-0.3-7.fc11.src.rpm 2009-05-29

$ rpmlint *.rpm vfrnav.spec 
vfrnav-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

* OK
? needs attention

* rpmlint is OK

* package is named according to the guidelines

* specfile is named after the package

* package is licensed under a Fedora approved licence (GPLv2+)

* package license matches the license of the sources

* license file (COPYING) is included as %doc

* specfile is written in legible English

* sources matches upstream

$ md5sum vfrnav-0.3.tar.gz SRPM/vfrnav-0.3.tar.gz 
674af747da8ea31642df815e909b2342  vfrnav-0.3.tar.gz
674af747da8ea31642df815e909b2342  SRPM/vfrnav-0.3.tar.gz

* package builds in mock (Fedora 10)

? is the boost-devel BuildRequires needed?
  there are no include statements in the sources including any boost headers
  and there are no boost library dependencies in the built rpms
  configure does check for it though...

? directories not owned by package or its dependencies:

  26x26 and 40x40 are very odd sized icons, neither
  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/26x26 nor /usr/share/icons/hicolor/40x40
  are available in the hicolor-icon-theme package

  the subdirectories /usr/share/icons/hicolor/26x26/hildon and
  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/40x40/hildon are not owned by any package
  either - and a subdirectory called hildon is not standard either
  (not present in any of the directories for normal sized icons), is
  there a reason for not using something standard like apps instead?

* no duplicate files

* permissions are sane and %files has %defattr

* %clean clears buildroot

* spec file consistently uses macros

* package contains code

* %doc is not runtime essential

? is the utils subpackage useful/usable without the main package?
  it currently has no Requires on the main package

* desktop files are processed with desktop-file-validate

* package does not own other's directories

* %install clears buildroot

* installed filenames are 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.