[Bug 530754] Review Request: scour - A script to clean SVG files

[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=530754





--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org>  2009-10-28 08:35:35 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: 
       [] devel/i386 
       [] devel/x86_64
       [] F11/i386 
       [x] F11/x86_64

______________________

 [!] Rpmlint output:
     $ rpmlint scour.spec scour-0.21-2.fc11.src.rpm
noarch/scour-0.21-2.fc11.noarch.rpm 
scour.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yocto_css.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

______________________

 [x] Buildroot is correct
     (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))

______________________

 [!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.

From
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
you *HAVE* to add a comment, why you choose multiple licensing and split the
files in the %files section, too. If you want to split the files into several
subpackages, as suggested there, is your choice ;)

______________________

 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: BSD and ASL 2.0
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: bfa8ddd75e72b734064385b7279d8dbb
     Build source:    bfa8ddd75e72b734064385b7279d8dbb
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [-] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1774382
 [!] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
     I tried to compess some images, but without result. They could not be
opened afterwards or are 100000% bigger and not openable.
Could you provide a test image, which works for you?
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.


Problems:
- Package does not work as described on my pc.
- rpmlint: remove the sheband, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingTricks#Remove_shebang_from_files
- license issue, as described above.

-- 
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.