[Bug 532590] Review Request: yaws - Web server for dynamic content written in Erlang

[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=532590





--- Comment #4 from Josephine Tannhäuser <josephine.tannhauser at googlemail.com>  2009-11-21 08:11:29 EDT ---

NOT OKAY - MUST: $ rpmlint 
yaws.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/setuid_drv.so
yaws.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/setuid_drv.so
yaws.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/yaws_sendfile_drv.so
yaws.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/yaws_sendfile_drv.so
yaws.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/epam
yaws.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def
yaws-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
- You have *.so-files, so you should have a Debug-Package
- zero lenght? I think this can be removed
OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
NOT OKAY - MUST: License files included in %doc
./test/ibrowse/LICENSE is missing
(you have to rename it to avoid doubled filenames in %doc)
OK - MUST: Spec is in American English
OK - MUST: Spec is legible
OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5
2d6bd52af002f356d6738900a67550c5531a0b4a
OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i686
CAN'T TEST, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T AN ACCESS TO KOJI - 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: Handles locales properly with %find_lang
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
muststate this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - 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
NOT OKAY - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: Package 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 valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
NOT OKAY, BECAUSE NOT ALL LICENSE TEXTS ARE IN A SEPERATE LICENSE FILE- SHOULD:
Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
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: Builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: Compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: Functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
OK - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files 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.


Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
NOT OKAY - Debuginfo complete
You have .so-files you should have a debugpackage

-- 
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.