[Bug 650180] Review Request: tkabber - Client for the Jabber instant messaging system

[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=650180

--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-11-05 12:18:13 EDT ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is NOT silent

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/tkabber-0.11.1-1.svn1948.fc12.noarch.rpm 
tkabber.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcl-zlib
tkabber.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib
tkabber.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable ->
customization, customize, customable
tkabber.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkabber-remote
tkabber.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkabber
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../SRPMS/tkabber-0.11.1-1.svn1948.fc12.src.rpm 
tkabber.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable ->
customization, customize, customable
tkabber.src: W: strange-permission tkabber 0755
tkabber.src: W: strange-permission tkabber-remote 0755
tkabber.src: W: strange-permission tkabber-snapshot.sh 0755
tkabber.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
tkabber.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
tkabber.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tkabber-0.11.1.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

All these messages were explained by the submitter (see above).

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines. The
versioning scheme is correct because it's a post-release snapshot. 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file DOES NOT match the actual license
(GPLv2+).

+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (my F-12 ppc).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Fix License tag, and I'll continue.

-- 
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.