[Bug 570424] Review Request: transmission-remote-cli - A console client for the Transmission BitTorrent client

Sun Mar 7 23:00:37 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=570424

--- Comment #3 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org> 2010-03-07 18:00:31 EST ---
$ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli.spec
transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The no-buildroot-tag warning can be ignored since you actually use it to
install
the files.

$ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli.spec
transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag

The first warning can and should be solved by adding 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' at
the beginning of the %install section. For second warning, see above.

$ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli-0.5.5-2.20100303git.fc12.noarch.rpm
transmission-remote-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses
-> nurses, curses, n curses
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Guess ncurses actually is spelled correctly. ;)

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
 [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
     supported architecture.
     Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     source RPM: see above
     binary RPM: see above
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
     License: GPLv3+
 [-] License file is included in %doc.
 [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
 [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
     SHA1SUM of Source: 52873f09c773101e3ef982d5406205ae878b3c33
 [x] Package compiles successfully
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
 [-] Specfile handles locales properly
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [-] Package owns directorys it creates
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
 [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
 [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
 [x] Macros are consistently used
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
 [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
 [-] Header files are in a -devel package
 [-] Static libraries are in a -static package
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
 [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
 [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
 [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
 [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [!] %{buildroot} is removed at beginning of %install
 [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [!] Package contains latest upstream version
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] non-English translations for description and summary
 [!] Package builds in mock
     Tested on: F12/x86_64; see my note concerning README.md below
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     tested build with koji
 [x] Program runs
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
 [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

Issues to point out:
* You should write down in your ChangeLog what you actually changed in the
  package or rather in the specfile
* The installation of the README.md is not okay yet. The file actually would
get
  installed in /, which obviuously is not the right place for documentation
files.
  Seems I forgot the important thing in my suggestion before, sorry for that.
  (It really was a 'quick note' it seems).

  This one will be even better:

  install -Dpm 644 %{SOURCE1}
%{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md

  Note you will also have to change the line in %files section accordingly:

  %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md

* While checking the sha1sum I noted there were some changes on the code just
  today, maybe you want to update the file and the release tag accordingly
then?

* The release number should always begin with 0. For example a full version
string
  should be something like 0.5.5-0.20100303git. See [1] for the guidelines
about
  that. The principle you are following at preset is the one for post-releases,
  but there weren't any releases before. Basically, the guideline which
concerns
  to pre-release packages should be applied here. But, I guess there never will
  be a release after this "pre-release", since the sources just can be obtained
  from the git repository. I won't be that strict and would approve your
package
  also when you're staying at increasing the release number.

Please fix at least the first two issues and I will approve your package then.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

-- 
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.