[Bug 487044] Review Request: eee-control - Asus Eee PC hardware control and configuration tool
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 15 00:44:58 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=487044
Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |r.landmann at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review?,
| |needinfo?(rpm at greysector.ne
| |t)
--- Comment #31 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2010-11-14 19:44:55 EST ---
Thanks Dominik!
Just a few things here that need attention.
Also note that unless you plan to package this for EPEL, you don't need:
* the BuildRoot:
* rm -rf %{buildroot} under %install
* the %clean section.
Please rebuild to fix the issues below:
- = N/A
/ = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output is clean:
$ rpmlint SPECS/eee-control.spec
SPECS/eee-control.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
SPECS/eee-control.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
SPECS/eee-control.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: eee-control-0.9.6.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/eee-control-0.9.6-1.fc14.src.rpm
eee-control.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Asus -> Aus, Asur, Apus
eee-control.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkeys -> hot
keys, hot-keys, hotcakes
eee-control.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
eee-control.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
eee-control.src: W: invalid-url Source0: eee-control-0.9.6.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/i686/eee-control-0.9.6-1.fc14.i686.rpm
eee-control.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Asus -> Aus, Asur,
Apus
eee-control.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkeys -> hot
keys, hot-keys, hotcakes
eee-control.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/eee-control-tray.desktop
eee-control.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/eee-control-0.9.6/eee-dispswitch.sh
eee-control.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/eee-control-0.9.6/eee-control-query
eee-control.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eee-control-daemon
eee-control.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eee-control-tray
eee-control.i686: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/eee-control-daemon
eee-control.i686: W: incoherent-subsys
/etc/rc.d/init.d/eee-control-daemon $prog
eee-control.i686: W: incoherent-init-script-name eee-control-daemon
('eee-control', 'eee-controld')
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/i686/eee-control-debuginfo-0.9.6-1.fc14.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
eee-control.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: eee-control-0.9.6.tar.gz
See notes below on tarball
eee-control.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/eee-control-tray.desktop
This is as expected, no problem
eee-control.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/eee-control-0.9.6/eee-dispswitch.sh
eee-control.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/eee-control-0.9.6/eee-control-query
These (and eee-control-setup.sh) shouldn't be in doc, should they?
eee-control.i686: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/eee-control-daemon
This is intentional and necessary, right?
eee-control.i686: W: incoherent-subsys
/etc/rc.d/init.d/eee-control-daemon $prog
eee-control.i686: W: incoherent-init-script-name eee-control-daemon
('eee-control', 'eee-controld')
The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower
case.
[/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific
items
[!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
As Christoph Wickert points out in Comment #15, the package contains
Asus' Eee logo, in eee-icon.png and eee-icon-small.png. Where do the other
icons in the same directory come from?
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
ISC license properly identified for the main file, but some icons in
/usr/share/eee-control are from the GNOME icon set, which is GPL
(see icons here: http://people.freedesktop.org/~jimmac/icons/#git and
license here: http://art.gnome.org/ )
[-] 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.
[-] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
The git operations you documented got me the source, but I couldn't
generate a tarball with the same md5sum. Please note the steps you used to
generate the tarball; this will have to include removing the Eee logos noted
above, since if we can't ship these in the binary, we can't ship them in source
either.
[/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Builds for i686:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2599687
[/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
Package uses ExclusiveArch as it is specific to 32-bit x86 machines
[/] 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 (with the %find_lang macro)
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
[/] Package is not relocatable.
[/] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] Permissions on files are set properly
Check the various scripts currently in /usr/share/doc/eee-control-0.9.6/
[/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
[/] Package consistently uses macros.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
Check the various scripts currently in /usr/share/doc/eee-control-0.9.6/
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning.
[/] 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.
[/] Filenames are valid UTF-8
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[/] 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 through koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2599687
[/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?] Package functions as described.
[/] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] Subpackages other than -devel require the base package as a fully
versioned
dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct (normally in -devel)
[-] File based requires are sane.
[!] Package contains man pages for binaries and scripts.
Unfortunately, package contains no man pages, but this is not a blocker.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list