[Bug 650181] Review Request: tkabber-plugins - Additional plugins for tkabber

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 14 14:08:10 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=650181

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-12-14 09:08:09 EST ---
Ok, the situation with licensing is much better now. Ok, here is my 

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is silent

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/tkabber-plugins-0.11.1-2.svn1948.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

+/- All files, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, must be
included in %doc. So. please, add also *all* license.terms files. I suggest to
rename them in according to particular plugins they corresponds to. 

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: diff -ru tkabber-plugins-0.11.1
tkabber-plugins-0.11.1.from_package/
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, so, please, add the license files and I'll continue.

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list