[Bug 530649] Review Request: massxpert - Mass Spectrometry

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Mar 19 19:49:48 UTC 2010

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |steve.traylen at cern.ch
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-03-19 15:49:42 EDT ---
Review:  massxper
Date:    19th March 2010
Koji Build:  Seems to be timing out :-(

*  COMMENT: rpmlint output
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/massxpert-2.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm 
massxpert.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrometric ->
spectrometer, spectroscopic, spectroscopy
massxpert.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrometric ->
spectrometer, spectroscopic, spectroscopy

*  YES: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
*  YES: spec file name same as  base package %{name}.
*  YES: Packaging Guidelines.
   Very clean packages
*  YES: Approved license in .spec file.
*  YES: License on Source code.
   Extremly clear licensing in source as GPLv3.
*  YES: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist.
   COPYING file present.
*  YES: Written in American English.
*  YES: Spec file legible. 
*  YES: Included source must match upstream source.
$ md5sum massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz SOURCES/massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz 
50ee3fecfac0ad047004748971a1f1c0  massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz
50ee3fecfac0ad047004748971a1f1c0  SOURCES/massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz
*  YES: Build on one architecture.
*  YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted.
*  YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
*  NO: Handle locales properly. 


   could be handled better.

*  YES: ldconfig must be called on shared libs.
No shared libs.
*  YES: No bundled copies of system libraries.
*  YES: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable.
not relocatable.
*  MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates
   /usr/share/applications/ owned by filesystem
   /usr/share/pixmaps/ ownded by filesystem.

* YES:  No duplicate files in %files listings. 
* YES:  Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr
* YES:  %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
* YES:  Each package must consistently use macros.
* YES:  The package must contain code, or permissable content.
* YES:  Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.  
 Been put in seperate noarch package.
* YES:  %doc  must not affect the runtime of the application. 
* YES:  Header files must be in a -devel package.
 - no header files.
* YES:  Static libraries must be in a -static package.
 no statics.
* YES:  Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
 no .pc files.
* YES:  Then library files that end in .so 
         (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. 
 .so files but these are a plugin.
* YES:  devel packages must require the exact base package
 no -devel.
* YES:  No .la libtool archives
* YES:  GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file
* YES:  No files or directories already owned by other packages. 
* YES:  %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
* YES:  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


Could you rewrite the description just to avoid the word spectrometric?

Work to be done:
Just that one locale file should be handled.

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