[Bug 639348] Review Request: gkeyfile-sharp - C# bindings for glib2's keyfile implementation

[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=639348

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-10-04 07:39:32 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is ALMOST silent

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint gkeyfile-sharp-*
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) keyfile -> key file,
key-file, keyhole
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyfile -> key
file, key-file, keyhole
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: E: no-binary
gkeyfile-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gkeyfile-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:

All these messages should be ignored (spelling-error as false positive and the
rest - due to the nature of C# applications)

+ 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, except the issue with unowned directory (see below).

+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (
strict LGPLv2)
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is 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
mono-gkeyfile-sharp-GKEYFILE_SHARP_0_1-0-g07a401a.tar.gz*
21a8a7ebfd4cbc2495d2f917426768550fe9dc2dead0e570541dc6a33f181c3d 
mono-gkeyfile-sharp-GKEYFILE_SHARP_0_1-0-g07a401a.tar.gz
21a8a7ebfd4cbc2495d2f917426768550fe9dc2dead0e570541dc6a33f181c3d 
mono-gkeyfile-sharp-GKEYFILE_SHARP_0_1-0-g07a401a.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 


+ 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 MUST own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately, the
package doesn;t claim ownership over %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}/ directory. Please
fix it.

+ 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.
+ The "devel" sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}/
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) file is properly placed in *-devel sub-package and
necessary runtime dependency is added.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
+ 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.

Almost done. Please fix the issue with unowned directory and I'll finish this
review.

-- 
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.