[Bug 620000] Review Request: hatari - An Atari ST emulator suitable for playing games

[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=620000

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-11-14 07:04:13 EST ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is silent

sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/hatari-*
hatari.src: W: invalid-url Source1: hatari-1.4.0-debian-manpages.tar.gz
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
sulaco ~: 

This may be safely ignored.

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I have only few (maybe not so
important) notes:

* I don't like this "Requires %{name}" line in ui sub-package. Does it means
that UI should work fine with previous versions of hatari?
* Regarding python support - the explicit "Requires: python2" also worries me -
I strongly suggest you to test whether hatari-ui works with python3 since we
already ship python3 in F-14 an higher.

Anyway these two are not a blockers - just a friendly reminders.

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later).

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package (gpl.txt),
MUST be included in %doc.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum hatari-1.4.0.tar.bz2*
690e21bd2210a7e86af5d76ccc7f4e608aae37df466d2ead2ac4d105a637bc7b 
hatari-1.4.0.tar.bz2
690e21bd2210a7e86af5d76ccc7f4e608aae37df466d2ead2ac4d105a637bc7b 
hatari-1.4.0.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 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 without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
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.

Ok, so, please, mark gpl.txt as %doc and I'll finish it. Also it would be great
if you comment my notes regarding dependencies in *-ui sub-package.

-- 
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.