[Bug 660095] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations

[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=660095

Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
               Flag|fedora-review?              |

--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-12-05 10:11:28 EST ---
rpmlint output:
impressive.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python-impressive
impressive.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

**

The summary would be better as
 "A program that displays presentation slides"

**

The install scenario is a bit odd. I'd probably just install impressive.py as
%{_bindir}/impressive, but for some reason the past maintainer has implemented
a wrapper for checking that the hardware has OpenGL acceleration.

The install of the wrapped python script as %{_bindir}/python-impressive seems
a bit silly. I'd install it as %{python_sitelib}/impressive.py.

**

This is a Python package, so you should add BuildRequires: python-devel to make
sure everything goes alright.

**


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ~OK
- Upstream uses the upper-case name Impressive, also in the tarball. However,
the program in the tarball is "impressive.py", which would point to a
lower-case name.
- It's better to keep the name in lowercase, since the package already exists
in Fedora.

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
1fefb25db71ee322a59353de85ae00b4  Impressive-0.10.3.tar.gz
1fefb25db71ee322a59353de85ae00b4  ../SOURCES/Impressive-0.10.3.tar.gz

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK

MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
- demo.pdf is quite large in comparison to the other files, but I guess this is
OK.

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A

MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
- Although the application is graphical, it needs to be launched from the
command prompt.

MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A

-- 
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.