[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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530649
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
../RPMS/noarch/massxpert-doc-2.1.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/massxpert-2.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/massxpert-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.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.
GPLv3
* 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.
mock
* YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted.
mock.
* YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
mock.
* NO: Handle locales properly.
/usr/share/massxpert/locales
/usr/share/massxpert/locales/massxpert_fr.qm
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
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
* 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.
-----------
Comments:
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