[Bug 634614] Review Request: mingw32-srvany - Utility for creating a service from any MinGW Windows binary

[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=634614

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |lemenkov at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|andrew at beekhof.net          |lemenkov at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-10-07 15:31:02 EDT ---
Andrew, sorry for shamelessly breaking into your review but it has been more
than two weeks since last change of this ticket. And some people are waiting
for this package. So here is my 

REVIEW:

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

- rpmlint is NOT silent

Sulaco ~: rpmlint Desktop/mingw32-srvany-*
mingw32-srvany.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-srvany-debuginfo.noarch: E: empty-debuginfo-package
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Sulaco ~: 

The sub-package -debuginfo is empty so I suppose you should not even try to
build it.

+/- The package seems to be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Nevertheless I'm feeling doubts here - the upstream named it as rhsrvany, so it
make me wonder that mingw32-rhsrvany could be more proper package's name for
this app.

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines except the issue with bogus
debuginfo (see above).

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file DOES NOT match the actual license
(GPLv2+).

0 No file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is provided
by upstream.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.

- The sources used to build the package, MUST match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Unfortunately I got only 404 while trying the url
from spec - please fix it.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rhsrvany-1.0.0.tar.gz*
28c3911ee7d5acbba12532c8417d4b34c4bec6f5dece191773a62df87c39bc28 
rhsrvany-1.0.0.tar.gz
28c3911ee7d5acbba12532c8417d4b34c4bec6f5dece191773a62df87c39bc28 
rhsrvany-1.0.0.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 


+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2521293

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No need to run ldconfig for mingw32 libraries.
+ 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.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No need to separate header files from main package for mingw32-related
package.
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 for mingw32 packages, since they are intended for devel
entirely.
0 The mingw32 package may contain necessary .la libtool archives. This is not a
blocker.
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.

Summarizing things - please:

* Fix URL
* Fix license tag
* Do not generate bogus debuginfo package
* Comment my doudts about name of package

-- 
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.