[Bug 551914] Review Request: monodevelop-database - A database plugin for monodevelop

[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=551914

--- Comment #11 from Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de> 2010-03-07 13:55:45 EST ---
Thanks for the new pacakge. Here is now the full review:

* rpmlint: TODO
rpmlint SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec
SRPMS/monodevelop-database-2.2-6.fc13.src.rpm
RPMS/i686/monodevelop-database-*2.2-6.fc*
SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 39, tab: line 4)
monodevelop-database.src:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39,
tab: line 4)
monodevelop-database.i686: E: no-binary
monodevelop-database.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-database.i686: W: no-documentation
monodevelop-database-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

- no-binary, no-documentation and only-non-binary-in-usr-lib are
false positives (but you could probably package the Changelog as %doc in
the main package)
- mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs should be fixed

* naming: OK
- name matches upstream
- spec file name matches package name

* sources: OK
- md5sum: 430571024f88c87d5104121739c6ab7e  monodevelop-database-2.2.tar.bz2
- sources matches upstream
- Source0 tag ok
- spectool -g  works

* binaries in upstream sources: TODO
find -name '*.dll'
 ./contrib/MySql/MySql.Data.dll
- to prevent that this assembly accidentally leaks into the binary
package, please delete it in the %prep section

* License: TODO
- License in spec file does _not_ match the actual license
spec file: GPLv2+
COPYING, sources: MIT

* package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": OK

* spec file written in English and legible: minor TODOs
- the %description of the devel package should be rephrased a little bit:
"Database Add-in for MonoDevelop. Development package.

The %{name}-devel package contains development files
for %{name}."
Probably the last sentence would be sufficient.

- please split the very long line of the BuildRequires so that it fit into
80 characters for better readability

- please append a "/" to the URL to get a 100% correct URL ;-)


* compilation: TODO
- does not build in koji (dist-f14) for x86_64
- since this project uses a standard autotools-based configure script, 
please use %configure

* BuildRequires: OK

* locales handling: OK

* ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a)

* package owns all directories that it creates: OK

* %files section: OK

* no files listed twice in %files: OK

* file permissions: TODO
- %defattr used
- *.mo files are executable, but should have permissions 644
- *.dll files are not executable, however the current convention is, that they
should be executable, too

* %clean section: OK

* macro usage: OK

* code vs. content: OK, code only

* main package should not contain development related parts: OK

* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)

* header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a)

* static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a)

* *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a)

* devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK

* packages must not contain *.la files: OK

* GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a)

* packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK

* rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK

* all filenames UTF-8: OK

* functional test: OK
- only roughly tested that some menus and dialog boxes can be opened correctly

* debuginfo sub-package: OK (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.