[Bug 526855] Review Request: webacula - Web interface of a Bacula backup system

[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=526855





--- Comment #11 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov at gmail.com>  2009-10-10 12:28:33 EDT ---
Here is review checklist. A few new problems discovered.

+ rpmlint output:
webacula.src: W: strange-permission webacula_clean_tmp_files 0775
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ 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 matches the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in
  %doc.
+ 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, as
  provided in the spec URL.

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/webacula/webacula-3.3.0.tar.gz
Not found. Did you forget to upload release?

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
  one supported architecture.
+ If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
  architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
  ExcludeArch.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Spec file handles locales properly.

It puts locales under /usr/share/webacula/languages while usual place is
/usr/share/locale, so you cannot use %find_lang here. You need to specify
individual locales with %lang(en), like:
%lang(en) %{_datadir}/%{name}/languages/en
...

This will also require to specify directories directly:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/languages
%{_datadir}/%{name}/application
...

+ Does not store library files.
+ Package does not contain bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package does not designed to be relocatable.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A 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.

I'm suggesting to replace __command macros (%{__rm}, %{__mv}, ...) with their
usual equivalents as their usage is unnecessary in Fedora. Not a blocker,
though.

+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ Does not contain large documentation files.
+ Includes only doc files in %doc.
+ Noarch package - does not contain libraries.
+ Does not contain GUI applications.
+ 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 the package are valid 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.