[Bug 586473] Review Request: mg - Tiny Emacs-like editor

[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=586473

--- Comment #13 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2010-10-04 12:43:26 EDT ---
Hi Mark,

here's the formal review of mg. The package looks almost fine. Just three minor
things:

- The license field should contain the license of the binary package. In mixed
  licensing scenarios like here, you have to try to extract something like the 
  least common multiple of the involved licenses. Since "Public Domain"
  isn't a real license, you can usually omit it if it's involved in a mixed
  licensing scenario. I would condense everything to "BSD and ISC and MirOS".
  I'm not sure if this expression can be simplified further.

- Makefile.in defines variable "libdir" which is currently unused. However, in 
  order to prevent unwanted surprises in future versions, I suggest to assign 
  a proper value, e.g. by adding libdir='%{_libdir}' to the first "make" 
  statement.

- add blank lines between the %changelog entries


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
mg.src:25: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The warning can be ignored since "configure" isn't generated by autoconf but a
manually written shell script that doesn't work with %configure. "libdir"
should be assigned in the make statement.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - mixed licensing scenario
    - licenses involved: BSD, ISC, MirOS

[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
    - drop "Public Domain" and the parentheses:
      BSD and ISC and MirOS

[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
    - tarball doesn't contain license texts
    - file README contains some copyright information (README present in %doc)

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum mg-20090107.tar.gz*
    f25a139da44c3a2f760ffec531bd996e  mg-20090107.tar.gz
    f25a139da44c3a2f760ffec531bd996e  mg-20090107.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    Koji scratch build:
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2511059

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
    - no locales present

[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[X] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. 
    - seems to work as expected, but I'm not an Emacs guy, though. :)

[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
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.