[Bug 582931] Review Request: Piwik - An open source web analytics software

Fri Apr 16 13:09:26 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=582931

Liberty <liberty at live.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |liberty at live.com

--- Comment #1 from Liberty <liberty at live.com> 2010-04-16 09:09:24 EDT ---
This is my informal review:

Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. The release
should be like Release: 1%{?dist}. Refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[-]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on:
[!]  Rpmlint output:rpmlint piwik-0.5.5-update.src.rpm 
piwik.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) analytics -> analytic, analytic s,
paralytics
piwik.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Piwik is an open source web analytics
software.
piwik.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Piwik
piwik.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analytics -> analytic,
analytic s, paralytics
piwik.src: E: description-line-too-long C the search engines keywords they
used, the language they speak… and so much more.
piwik.src: W: non-standard-group Web Development
piwik.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
piwik.src:14: W: hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /tmp/piwik-rpm
piwik.src:25: W: setup-not-quiet
piwik.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
piwik.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
piwik.src: W: invalid-url Source0: piwik.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.

[x]  Package is not relocatable.
[!]  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) Buildroot is
not required for the Fedora 10 and on.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. 
[!]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: The licence should be GPLv3+ as described in the LICENSE file.
[!]  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. %doc is not included. It should at least include
the LICENSE file. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation
[!]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.  the language they
speak… and so much more. The "..." is not needed.
[!]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    : 50073f2195780f33dd4bf97153173fd9
MD5SUM upstream package: 36207f77ac5527121c47a37fa1afe991
The upstream uses the zip to compress the source.
[x]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded:
Why:
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. (I think
Requires: webserver is better.
[?]  The spec file handles locales properly.
[-]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[!]  Package must own all directories that it creates. You should specify it in
the %file.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]  Permissions on files are set properly. 777 is dangerous!!!!!!
[!]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]  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.
[-]  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.
[?]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
[-]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[?]  Package functions as described.
[-]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]  File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===
As described above. I have commented on the items with problems.

=== Final Notes ===
1. Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines carefully
before packaging.
2. The files are installed in %install not in %post. 
3. Run rpmlint on every RPMs and SPEC and fix the errors.

-- 
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.