[Bug 588616] Review Request: halibut - TeX-like software manual tool

[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=588616

--- Comment #2 from Chen Lei <supercyper at 163.com> 2010-05-05 04:21:05 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Let me do a informal review.
> Package Review
> ==============
> Key:
> - = N/A
> x = Check
> ! = Problem
> ? = Not evaluated
> === REQUIRED ITEMS ===
> [x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
> [X]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
> supported architecture.
> [x]  Rpmlint output:
> halibut.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
> halibut.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
> vim-halibut.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
> ==> IGNORE
> [x]  Package is not relocatable.
> [x]  Buildroot is correct
> [x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
> legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> License type:MIT
> [x]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
> package is included in %doc.
> [x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> MD5SUM this package    :f8705a25bfd137fe7a5c0bde3523befa
> MD5SUM upstream package:f8705a25bfd137fe7a5c0bde3523befa
> [x]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
> Arches excluded:
> Why:
> [x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [-]  The spec file handles locales properly.
> [-]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
> [-]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [-]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]  Permissions on files are set properly. 
> [x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [x]  Package consistently uses macros.
> [x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
> [x]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
> [x]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [-]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [-]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [-]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
> [-]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> [x]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
> [-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
> application.
> [x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [?] Im new to packaging,but i feel there is a no need for a seperate package
> vim-halibut
> Regards
> Imran    

Can you approve this simple package? Though fedora doesn't have vim addons
package guideline, it seems a good idea to package vim addons seperately as the
emacs package guideline in fedora.

-- 
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.