[Bug 617592] Review Request: libaccounts-qt - Library for handling the account storage

[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=617592

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #16 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2010-08-08 15:04:30 EDT ---
Sorry for having been a bit nit-picking. However, I think the package is more
consistent now. Since docs are usually added with %doc, the Fedora guidelines
define the namespace of the doc files to be %{name}. It doesn't matter where
upstream wants to put them. If the package provided only html docs and no qch
file, you would have to add them with %doc and they would therefore be placed
in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. A single additional doc variant (qch) should
not lead to a change of the namespace. But maybe you can ask the upstream
developer whether he might adapt the naming schemes of libaccounts-glib and
libaccounts-qt.

Here comes the formal review. The package looks fine and is ready now. 
You should update the referenced location of the upstream SRPM, though. Release
4 of the package is no longer available, but the tarball of release 5 equals
that of your package too.

$ rpmlint libaccounts-qt-*.rpm
libaccounts-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary account-tool
libaccounts-qt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/accounts-qt-0.31/Accounts/.moc
libaccounts-qt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/accounts-qt-0.31/Accounts/.moc
libaccounts-qt.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
libaccounts-qt.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
libaccounts-qt.src: W: no-%clean-section
libaccounts-qt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

- the hidden dir is created by moc and is expected
- the missing %clean section and buildroot is OK as the package is 
  intended for F14+ only
All warnings can safely be ignored.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
    - LGPLv2 according to source file headers 

[+] MUST: The 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.
    $ md5sum accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz
/home/martin/rpmbuild/SOURCES/accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz 
    d6429682ff3623fcf0ddd2023603b491  accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz
    d6429682ff3623fcf0ddd2023603b491  accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz.upstream

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] 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: If the source package does not include license text(s) ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[+] 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.