[Bug 631898] Review Request: fatrat - Feature-rich download manager

[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=631898

Jan Kaluža <jkaluza at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |jkaluza at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jkaluza at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(jvcelak at redhat.co
                   |                            |m)

--- Comment #1 from Jan Kaluža <jkaluza at redhat.com> 2010-09-22 09:55:18 EDT ---
If you don't plan to have Fatrat in EPEL5 and below, you do not need to define
"BuildRoot:..." anymore, rpmbuild will use a sane one automatically (since
F-10).
You also do not need to clean the buildroot manually at the beginning of
%install (since F-10).
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

> $ rpmlint fatrat-1.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm 
> fatrat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, pod casts, pod-casts
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

> $ rpmlint fatrat*
> fatrat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, pod casts, pod-casts
> fatrat-czshare.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging
> fatrat-czshare.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging
> fatrat-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging
> fatrat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> fatrat-opensubtitles.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging
> fatrat-opensubtitles.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging
> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

No real problem here.

Formal review according to Review Guidelines:
Explanation:
[ok] .... the package meets the guideline item
[--] .... the guideline item is not relevant for this package
[ERR] ... the package fails to meet the guideline and must be fixed.
====================

[ok] rpmlint must be run on every package.
[ok] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ok] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[ok] License must be Fedora approved; Licensing Guidelines.
[ok] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[ok] license file must packaged in %doc.
[ok] spec file in American English.

rpmlint shows some warnings, but I think they are tollerable.

[ok] spec legible.
[ok] sources must match the upstream source
[ok] must compile and build.
[--] ExcludeArch if it does not.
[ok] complete and sensible BuildRequires
[--] handling of locales
[--] ldconfig for dynamic libs
[ok] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[--] rules for relocatable packages
[ok] directory ownership
[ok] no duplicate listing in %files
[ok] sane permissions; %defattr(...)
[ok] consistent macro usage
[ok] code or permissable content
[ok] large doc
[ok] header files
[--] static libs
[--] .so in -devel
[ok] devel requires base package
[--] remove .la files
[ERR] GUI app must include a %{name}.desktop and use desktop-file-install

> $desktop-file-validate fatrat.desktop 
> fatrat.desktop: warning: value "Application;Network;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application"
> fatrat.desktop: warning: value "fatrat.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path

I'm not sure if that's real problem, but it would be fine to have it fixed.

[ok] no owning of other packages' files/dirs
[ok] UTF-8 filenames


Formal review according to Packaging Guidelines:

[ok] naming
[ok] version and release
[ok] Licensing
[ok] no inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[ok] spec legibility
[ok] arch support
[ok] filesystem layout
[ok] changelogs
[ok] tags
[ok] BuildRoot
[ok] Requires
[ok] BuildRequires
[ok] summary and description
[ok] encoding
[ok] compiler flags
[ok] debuginfo
[ok] devel packages
[ok] no duplication of system libraries
[ok] no rpath
[ok] config files
[--] initscripts
[ok] desktop files
[ERR] Icon tag in Desktop Files

mentioned above

[ok] macros (inconsistent usage, as already noted)
[--] handling locale files
[ok] timestamps
[ok] parallel make
[--] scriptlets
[--] conditional deps
[--] relocatable packages
[ok] code vs content
[ok] file and dir ownership
[--] users and groups
[ok] web apps
[ok] no conflicts
[ok] no kernel modules
[ok] nothing in /srv
[ok] no bundling
[ok] no fonts bundling
[--] epoch
[ok] symlinks
[ok] man pages

-- 
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.