[Bug 643375] Review Request: dwm - Dynamic window manager for X

[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=643375

--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-10-15 10:35:32 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
dwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimising -> optimizing,
optimistic, optimist
dwm-user.x86_64: E: devel-dependency libX11-devel
dwm-user.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libX11-devel
dwm-user.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/src/dwm-5.8.2-1.fc13/config.def.h
dwm-user.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/src/dwm-5.8.2-1.fc13/dwm.c
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

Unfortunately there is no macro for /usr/src (that I know of). But
please use at least %{_prefix} macro.

Other warnings/errors are inevitable with the way dwm works so no
problem there.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.  .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
NEEDSWORK: The spec file must be written in American English.
optimising - British English (not that I care, but
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
says we should use American)

OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task.
md5sum: f0b422bfeaa812d66c6dd15c3cc92a6b
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
NEEDSWORK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

Error in mock for rawhide:
dwm.c:40:37: fatal error: X11/extensions/Xinerama.h: No such file or directory
Seems like you are missing BR on Xinerama package (make sure to add it
to Requires too for main package too)

OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
NA: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Header files must be in a -devel package.
I know this is not exactly the case, but dwm is pretty specific...I
don't think renaming subpackage dwm-user to dwm-devel would make sense

NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
NA: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


So summary:
 * optimising -> optimizing
 * use %{_prefix} macro for sources
 * missing BR providing Xinerama

-- 
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.