[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application

[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=642555

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-10-19 15:17:49 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages can be ignored in this case:

Sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint qdigidoc-*
qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidocclient
qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidoccrypto

^^^ it implies that no man-pages are provided.

qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

^^^ nautilus plugis are stored in libdir and sometimes they are not a
executable binaries (I mean made by gcc et al.)

qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: no-documentation

^^^ exactly what he said - no docs for this sub-package

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Sulaco ~/Desktop: 

+ 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 
(LGPLv2 or later).
+ 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 qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2*
38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780 
qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2
38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780 
qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ 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.
+ The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro).
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 No header files.
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.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.

- The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. Unfortunately two directories are not owned by anyone in the
dependency chain - %{_datadir}/mime/packages/ and %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/.
Their respective owners are - shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme. Please,
add them as explicit Requires (or ensure that someone from dependency chain
will require them).

+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Ok, I found the only possible issue - two potentially missing rutime
requirements (shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme). Please, either add them
as Requires or ensure that someone from dependency chain already requires them,
and I'll continue.

-- 
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.