[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based project

[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=676129

Michal Schmidt <mschmidt at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl |mschmidt at redhat.com

--- Comment #20 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt at redhat.com> 2011-04-08 09:03:21 EDT ---
rpmlint output:

qconf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qmake -> make, quake, q make
qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make
qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools,
auto-tools, autopilots
qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qmake -> make, quake, q make
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q
make
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools,
auto-tools, autopilots
qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni
qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf4.h
qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/qconf/conf/conf4.cpp
qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf.cpp
qconf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qconf

The warnings about spelling errors are bogus.
The missing manual page is unfortunate, but not a blocker.
The devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings are false positives.
If I understand qconf correctly, the files are necessary to its operation.

Formal checks:
"OK" means the package matches the guideline
"??" means unclear status, needs explanation
"--" means the guideline it not relevant
"ERR" signifies a problem

Checking with respect to the Packaging Guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines):

OK - naming
OK - version and release
OK - licensing
     "GPLv2+ with exceptions" because the sources have the usual
     GPLv2-or-later header and the COPYING file gives an extra
     permission on top of GPLv2 permissions.
OK - no pre-built binaries
OK - spec legible
OK - no architecture excluded
OK - filesystem layout
OK - rpmlint, see above
OK - changelog
OK - tags
OK - BuildRoot tag, not used, not necessary
OK - %clean, not used, not necessary
OK - Requires, no explicit ones
OK - BuildRequires
OK - summary and description
OK - encoding, ASCII
OK - documentation
OK - compiler flags
OK - debuginfo packages
-- - devel packages
-- - requiring base package
-- - static libraries
OK - no duplication of system libraries
OK - rpath, none
-- - configuration files
-- - initscripts
-- - desktop files
OK - macros
-- - %global preferred over %define
-- - locale files
OK - timestamps
OK - parallel make
-- - scriptlets
-- - conditional deps
OK - relocatable packages, not
OK - code vs content
OK - file and dir ownership
-- - users and groups
-- - web apps
ERR- conflicts:
   - the package "gridengine" also provides /usr/bin/qconf
   - You'll need to resolve somehow. Follow the hints at:
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Conflicting_Files
OK - no kernel modules
OK - no files under /srv
OK - no bundling of multiple projects
?? - patches should have an upstream bug link or comment
   - it is unclear to me whether qconf-1.4-optflags.patch is going to be
     Fedora-specific forever or if it's going to be resolved in the upstream
     project.
OK - use of epochs, none
-- - symlinks
-- - man pages, would be nice to have though
-- - test suites
-- - tmpfiles.d
-- - application-specific guidelines


Steps of the Review Guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines):

OK - rpmlint
OK - Naming Guidelines
OK - spec name matches package %{name}
ERR- Packaging Guidelines, see above
OK - approved license
OK - license tag matches
OK - COPYING in %doc
OK - US English
OK - legible
OK - source checksum, sha256sum:
     212bce09a585a22cf4b9e1a881e8f79c32a82e5cb8ea7f99a056a50faf809af8
     qconf-1.4.tar.bz2
OK - builds on all archs
OK - BuildRequires
-- - locales
-- - ldconfig
OK - no bundling
-- - not relocatable
OK - file ownership
OK - no duplicate files
OK - sane permissions
OK - macros
OK - code or content
-- - large doc
OK - %doc not essential to runtime
OK - header files to be in -devel
   - the headers included in the package are needed for its operation
-- - no static libs
-- - dynamic libs
-- - devel packages' reqs
-- - *.la files
-- - desktop files for GUI apps
OK - no ownership of other packages' files
OK - valid filenames

-- 
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.