[Bug 692537] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment

[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=692537

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-04-01 07:05:46 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is almost silent

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint emacs-librep-el-0.91.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm librep-*
emacs-librep-el.x86_64: W: no-documentation
librep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded
librep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp,
Ispell
librep.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded
librep.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp,
Ispell
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
work ~/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 almost meets the Packaging Guidelines except the following
issues:

* Please remove *.la files (from main package - you already removed it from
devel)
* Missing "Requires: emacs" or "Requires: emacs-filesystem" in emacs-librep. In
fact there are lots of packages which are also co-owners of the
/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp directory so this issue is not so important.

+ 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 (GPLv2
or later).

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package (COPYING),
MUST be 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 librep-0.91.1.tar.bz2*
e4056cab99a6fe3add11191b36ed88ae07f9735a6241362427972f8756c75497 
librep-0.91.1.tar.bz2
e4056cab99a6fe3add11191b36ed88ae07f9735a6241362427972f8756c75497 
librep-0.91.1.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ 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.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ 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.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.

- The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

- The package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives (see note above)

0 Not a GUI application.

- One of the sub-packages owns files or directories already owned by other
packages (emacs-filesystem). See note above and consider fixing it.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

-- 
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.