[Bug 575480] Review Request: imvirt - Detects several virtualizations

[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=575480

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

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

--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2010-03-21 12:07:09 EDT ---
Hi Miroslav,

 First I think its much easier for reviewers if you always bump the release
 numbers during the review.


Here's a review:

Review: imvirt
Date:   21st March 2011
Mock Build: F14, x86_64 builds.

* YES: rpmlint output
rpmlint SPECS/imvirt.spec RPMS/x86_64/imvirt-*
SRPMS/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.fc14.src.rpm 
imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations ->
conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization
imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization ->
actualization, visualization, contextualization
imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized ->
ritualized, actualized, virtual
imvirt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations ->
conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization
imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization ->
actualization, visualization, contextualization
imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized,
actualized, virtual
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

All of these words are in very common usage within this context.
They will become words soon enough.

* YES: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
* YES: spec file name same as  base package %{name}.
* NO: Packaging Guidelines.

The Source tar ball is imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz which is presumably
a pre-release to 0.9.0. This needs to be handled in the release.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

* YES: Approved license in .spec file.
GPLv2+
* COMMENT: License on Source code.
CLearly licensed this way.
* YES: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist.
COPYFILE file present.
* YES: Written in American English.
* YES: Spec file legible. 
* YES: Included source must match upstream source.
$ md5sum imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 
698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464  imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz
698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464  ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz

Is the Source URL possible to define exactly the example here?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net


* YES: Build on one architecture.
* YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted.
* YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
* YES: Handle locales properly. 
* YES: ldconfig must be called on shared libs.
* YES: No bundled copies of system libraries.
* YES: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable.
* YES: A package must own all directories that it creates
* 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.
No large docs.  
* YES:  %doc  must not affect the runtime of the application. 
* YES:  Header files must be in a -devel package.
NO headers.
* YES:  Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No statics.
* YES:  Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
No pkgconfig
* YES:  Then library files that end in .so 
         (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. 
No .sos
* YES:  devel packages must require the exact base package
None
* YES:  No .la libtool archives
None
* YES:  GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file
No gui
* YES:  No files or directories already owned by other packages. 
None are.
* YES:  %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
It does.
* YES:  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Yes.


So just handling of the fact this is a pre-release 
and if you can change the URL do so.

-- 
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.