[Bug 609169] Review Request: chatzilla - Standalone Mozilla IRC Client, no browsers attached

[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=609169

--- Comment #2 from Hicham HAOUARI <hicham.haouari at gmail.com> 2010-08-02 00:42:44 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> rpmlint
> 
> chatzilla.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chatzilla
>  - I wouldn't worry about a man page for this

+ Fixed

> chatzilla-gnome.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irc -> Ric,
> Irv, Ir
>  - Maybe just change this to "IRC" and add a period to the end of the sentence

+ Fixed

> chatzilla-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation
>  - This is fine

+ Fixed

> chatzilla-gnome.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
> /etc/gconf/schemas/chatzilla.schemas
>  - This is fine

+ False positive in this case

> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
> 
> formal review here:
> +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
> 
> MUST Items:
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
> [=] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
>  - chatzilla-gnome should probably use "Requires: %{name} =
> %{version}-%{release}"

+ Fixed

>  - You don't need a BuiltRoot for F10+ (unless you're going to branch in EL5)
>  - You don't need a %clean if you're only pushing to >= F-13 (and not EL5)

+ I am gonna push to F-12 also

> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines.
> [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
>  - All code I could find was triple licensed: MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+

+ Fixed

> [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
> [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL.
>  - Upstream: 9792a010e620a77c2502a8935c92373c
>  - SRPM:     9dfccd10b3ddb79841e11af48089362e

+ It is an archive generated from hg, as there are no releases

> [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
> at least one supported architecture.
> [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
> [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
> %find_lang macro.
> [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
> symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
> %post and %postun.
> [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory.
> [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
> [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
> %defattr(...) line.
> [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
> %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
> section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
> described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
> runtime of the application.
> [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
> removed in the spec.
> [+] 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.
> [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages.
> [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> 
> SHOULD Items:
> [=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
> supported architectures.
> [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
> [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
> [+] 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.

-- 
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.