[Bug 566962] Review Request: polipo - Lightweight Caching Web Proxy

[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=566962

Matthias Runge <mrunge at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mrunge at fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge <mrunge at fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-20 16:04:58 EST ---
Since I'm not approved, I'm able to give you an unofficial review

rpmlint polipo-1.0.4.1-1.fc12.src.rpm polipo.spec 
polipo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pipelining -> pipe lining,
pipe-lining, pipeline
polipo.src: W: invalid-url URL www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/polipo/
polipo.src: W: strange-permission polipo.init 0755
polipo.src:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 1)
polipo.spec:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 1)
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Looking deeper to the spec-file:

- URL-Entry should start with http://
- yum provides /sbin/install-info lists info as package providing
/sbin/install-info. If you definitely need it for pre and post-section, take
info. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires Lists
info as package, that doesn't need to be included. 
- $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}-Macros should not be mixed.
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS)

Mock builds fine.
Ok, looking deeper:
 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
(see above)
[+] 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. [FIXME?: covers this
list and more]
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
<<md5sum checksum>>
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[-] 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: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[-] 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: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it 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: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[+] 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

-- 
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.