[Bug 551258] Review Request: libgcal - A library to access google calendar events and contacts

Wed Apr 14 21:43:09 UTC 2010

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=551258

leigh scott <leigh123linux at googlemail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #15 from leigh scott <leigh123linux at googlemail.com> 2010-04-14 17:43:01 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: f13/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:

 rpmlint libgcal-0.9.3-4.fc13.src.rpm 
libgcal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) google -> Google, goggle, googly
libgcal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle,
googly
libgcal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl,
lib-curl, liberal
libgcal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxml -> Librium, libido,
Libyan
libgcal.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://libgcal.googlecode.com/files/libgcal-0.9.3.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

spelling errors can be ignored (you should capitalize google in summary and
description)
invalid-url warning is invalid

rpmlint libgcal-0.9.3-4.fc13.x86_64.rpm 
libgcal.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) google -> Google, goggle,
googly
libgcal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google,
goggle, googly
libgcal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl,
lib-curl, liberal
libgcal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxml -> Librium,
libido, Libyan
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. 

rpmlint libgcal-devel-0.9.3-4.fc13.x86_64.rpm
libgcal-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google,
goggle, googly
libgcal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

rpmlint libgcal-debuginfo-0.9.3-4.fc13.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type per spec: BSD
 [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 match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: da2368f6ccd9b4a77fa435b3181d298f814ef4ff
libgcal-0.9.3.tar.bz2
 [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.
 [x] 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=>see preamble
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Final provides and requires are sane.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2115844
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: F13/x86_64
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [-] %check is present and the test passes.

1) You Must drop the %{?dist} tag from the changelog
2) I Would like the spec file in standard format, but this isn't covered by
review guidelines 

Package approved

-- 
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.