[Bug 639291] Review Request: erlang-mustache - Mustache template engine for Erlang

[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=639291

--- Comment #2 from Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de> 2010-10-27 19:19:28 EDT ---
REVIEW: (I'll use your template)

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

+ rpmlint is not silent, but the only its message is a false positive:
  - I suggest changing "templating system" to "template system".
  - only-non-binary-in-usr-lib: general Erlang packaging problem which cannot
be avoided in the package

+ 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 (MIT).
+ 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.

downloaded# sha256sum mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz 
b06910e405e723e20b8924de2f2b7717f8cc3a6902f0d718629d3520897ffe01 
mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz
package# sha256sum mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz 
b06910e405e723e20b8924de2f2b7717f8cc3a6902f0d718629d3520897ffe01 
mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz

+ 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 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.
You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{} notation for other macros. Please use
%{buildroot}.

+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ 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.
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.

Just a minor: the macro usage that should be unified, particularly obvious in
the install line. I'll go over the others tomorrow, gotta leave for today. I
suspect they might suffer from the same thing, maybe you can have a look at
them right away.

-- 
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.