[Bug 648549] Review Request: spice-vdagent - Agent for Spice guests

[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=648549

Germán Racca <gracca at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Germán Racca <gracca at gmail.com> 2010-11-08 16:24:52 EST ---
Hi Hans,

here follows the 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: x86_64
[!]  Rpmlint output:
     spice-vdagent.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput ->
input, u input, sinciput
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput ->
input, u input, sinciput
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/spice-vdagent.desktop
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spice-vdagentd
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spice-vdagent
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/spice-vdagentd
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: E: malformed-line-in-lsb-comment-block # daemon
enhances the spice guest user experience with client
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: E: malformed-line-in-lsb-comment-block # mouse mode,
guest <-> client copy and paste support and more.
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/spice-vdagentd
$prog
     spice-vdagent.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/spice-vdagentd
[x]  Package is not relocatable.
[x]  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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: GPLv3+
[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    : dca976a6a92744462e1aed101f4ea467
     MD5SUM upstream package: dca976a6a92744462e1aed101f4ea467
[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.
[x]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]  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.
[-]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  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.
[-]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: x86_64
[?]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
[?]  Package functions as described.
[x]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]  File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===
1. Most important for me in this review is the rpmlint output, as it has some
errors and warnings. The first 4 warnings are acceptable for me. However, as
you know this is my first review, and I've never seen these errors/warnings
before. If you didn't see them before, please try to correct them. If they are
acceptable, please explain why. 
2. This is a should, but I was not able to successfully compile the package in
mock because of the updates-testing requirement for one of the BRs.


Package is nice, but please clarify the marked issues.

Regards,
Germán.

-- 
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.