[Bug 628202] Review Request: gretl - A tool for econometric analysis

[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=628202

--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-09-10 08:13:15 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

- rpmling output isn't silent:

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gretl-*
gretl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretl_x11
gretl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretlcli
gretl.i686: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/gretl.desktop value
"Application;Science;Econometrics" for string list key "Categories" in group
"Desktop Entry" does not have a semicolon (';') as trailing character
gretl-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/gretl-1.9.1/plugin/heckit.c
gretl-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
work ~:

The two 'no-manual-page-for-binary' and one 'no-documentation' messages may be
omitted, while the rest two should be fixed. 

+ 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 does not meet the Packaging Guidelines.

-- Lost of *.la files in %{_libdir}/gretl-gtk2
-- Duplicated COPYING file in %{_datadir}/%{name}
-- Empty directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc - looks like a leftover.
-- Bundled font files in %{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts
-- Missing Requires: gtksourceview (owner of %{_datadir}/gtksourceview-1.0)

+ 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.
(GPLv3+) but does not reflect licensing conditions for 'cephes', 'minpack' and
some plugins. Please add them (seems to be a BSD for minpack, MIT for
plugin/mpack, but IANAL).

+ 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 matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2*
b46916828132cc6955ed20cf4c9816d17cae3f692368a245d56f8e55f3efda39 
gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2
b46916828132cc6955ed20cf4c9816d17cae3f692368a245d56f8e55f3efda39 
gretl-1.9.1.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.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.

+/- The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. In fact I'm not
quite sure because 'plugin/zipunzip' contains portions of zlib - please
unvestigate this.

0 The package isn't 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 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.
+ Header files placed in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries (*.a)
+ The library files that end in .so (without suffix) placed in a -devel
package.
+ devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 

- The package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built. See my upper notes.

-/+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file MUST be properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. Unfortunately it
is simply copied with 'install' utility, so, please use desktop-file-validate
(adds additional BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils) to check that everything is
ok

+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

That's all so far. Please comment/fix issues, mentioned above, 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.