[Bug 603481] Review Request: freerdp - remote desktop protocol client

Sun Nov 7 09:59:36 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=603481

Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #23 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2010-11-07 04:59:33 EST ---
Sorry it took so long, this dropped of my radar.

(In reply to comment #16)
> I settled on freerdp providing xfreerdp, freerdp-libs with the dynamic
> libraries, freerdp-plugins for "optional" plugins to libfreerdpchanman from
> freerdp-libs, and freerdp-devel.

Sounds good to me.

REVIEW FOR 89b239734db4e419925af122ef5d0301  freerdp-0.8.1-1.fc14.src.rpm

OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
freerdp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrdp -> xref, hardpan,
Oxnard
freerdp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdesktop -> desktop, r
desktop, copydesk
freerdp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrdp -> xref, hardpan,
Oxnard
freerdp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdesktop -> desktop, r
desktop, copydesk
freerdp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs,
lib, lis
freerdp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfreerdp ->
liberticide, subfreezing
freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfreerdpchanman 
freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug
ins, plug-ins, plugging
freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfreerdpkbd 
freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
freerdp-plugins.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.

- Spelling errors can be ignored, the spelling is correct.
- No documentation can be ignored, the docs are in another subpackage
- shared-lib-calls-exit should be fixe upstream. Not a blocker.

OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
FIX - MUST: sources do not match the upstream source by MD5 

- Upstream: 8a265ce267ea6508d30db29fd3c3c037
- SRPM: 1e64b766874966004c07db12fe73dde8

OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun (freerdp-libs).
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
OK - MUST: Header files are in -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
OK - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package.
OK - MUST: devel packages requires the freerdp-libs package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - The package contains a GUI application, but as xfreerdp cannot be called
without arguments, the desktop file is useless
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures (tested in koji).
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane.
OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
OK - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files are placed in -devel pkg
OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
OK - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
FIX - SHOULD: -devel package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.

Please download the source tarball again to make sure it's timestamp and md5
matches. Fix the points marked with FIX before build and consider the package
APPROVED.

-- 
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.