[Bug 638909] Review Request: erlang-gproc - Extended process registry for 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=638909

Mario Ceresa <mrceresa at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mrceresa at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mrceresa at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Mario Ceresa <mrceresa at gmail.com> 2010-11-25 11:32:17 EST ---
I'll review it!

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

- rpmlint is silent?
rpmlist -i suggests to noarch the package. Is it possible?

+ 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.
Package is listed with BSD but headers in source code says its Erlang Public
License. 

+ 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.
a12693d660133f5735d5543673023621  SOURCES/uwiger-gproc-f0807c9.tar.gz
a12693d660133f5735d5543673023621  uwiger-gproc-f0807c9.tar.gz (from github)

+ 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 
+ 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 Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
*-devel package.
0 The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ 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.

To summarize, I found only these two minor glitches:
* Consider if is possible to make the package noarch
* The license should be Erlang public license.

-- 
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.