[Bug 622173] Review Request: gappa - Prove programs with floating-point or fixed-point arithmetic

[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=622173

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|msrader at gmail.com           |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2010-09-16 13:44:59 EDT ---
Since Mark didn't respond, I do the formal review.

David, the package looks fine and is ready now. However, please remove the
comment above the %files section (about the %doc macro) as it isn't valid any
longer. ;-)

Also, the copyright notice in the source files looks a bit strange because of
the missing GPL version number:
"... under the terms of the GNU General Public License version."
Maybe you can ask upstream to fix it in a future release by adding the intended
version number.


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm
gappa.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gappa
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The warning is expected and can be ignored.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - GPLv2 or CeCILL accirding to file README and COPYING.GPL

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) must be included in
%doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum gappa-0.13.0.tar.gz*
    27a09741f6b4da4c46c85952102af651  gappa-0.13.0.tar.gz
    27a09741f6b4da4c46c85952102af651  gappa-0.13.0.tar.gz.1

    $ md5sum gappa.pdf*
    15be2bc2e5fc88ff5addea92b85c44ea  gappa.pdf
    15be2bc2e5fc88ff5addea92b85c44ea  gappa.pdf.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    Koji scratch build:
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2471643

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: .so files (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) ...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. 
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should require the base package.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[X] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
    - A manpage would be nice, but that's optional of course.

----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------

-- 
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.