[Bug 639278] Review Request: erlang-lfe - Lisp Flavoured Erlang

[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=639278

--- Comment #10 from Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de> 2010-11-14 12:42:53 EST ---
REVIEW:

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

(+) rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored:
  - spelling errors are false positives
  - only-non-binary-in-usr-lib and no-binary: general Erlang packaging problem
which cannot
be avoided in the package
  - Explicit lib dependency is required, as no shared lib that can be
auto-detected
  - no-documentation: I suggest adding README and COPYRIGHT file (see below),
there is also documentation in doc/, why is it not included? You might also
want to include the examples as doc.

+ 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.
+ 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 (BSD).
- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
  - There is a COPYRIGHT file containing the license, it must be included in
the %doc section

+ 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.

package# sha256sum rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz 
e84a8c8e743badcae9438b66897210c6266f79d580fa9d67fa0dfcd0eff0d976 
rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz
downloaded# sha256sum ~/download/rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz 
e84a8c8e743badcae9438b66897210c6266f79d580fa9d67fa0dfcd0eff0d976 
~/download/rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ 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.
+ 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.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ 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.

The documentation should be fixed, the inclusion of the COPYRIGHT file must be
fixed.

-- 
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.