[Bug 692543] Review Request: sawfish - An extensible window manager for the X Window System

[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=692543

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-04-15 05:58:02 EDT ---
REVIEW:

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

- rpmlint is NOT silent

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/sawfish-*
sawfish.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/sawfish/1.8.0/lisp/sawfish/cfg/main.jl 0644L /bin/sh

^^^ Please, mark it as 0755 instead of 0644.

sawfish.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/sawfish-config

^^^ I suspect that this should be omitted however I'm not sure. Could you
please clarify this?

sawfish-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~: 

+ 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license
(GPLv2+ and Artistic 2.0). Please also add note in comments that GPLv2+ is for
sawfish itself while Artistic 2.0 is just for sounds.

+ 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, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum sawfish-1.8.0.tar.bz2*
5ce8f024511f3805398e89a884f317cd2131a7d995d1c7d5899ff112ab0ce1ce 
sawfish-1.8.0.tar.bz2
5ce8f024511f3805398e89a884f317cd2131a7d995d1c7d5899ff112ab0ce1ce 
sawfish-1.8.0.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 (by using the %find_lang macro).
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ 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.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime
requirement added.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

- The package MUST NOT contain any .la libtool archives.

- The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file must be properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.

- The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. Unfortunately there are some directories owned by other packages w/o
proper runtime dependency. Namely:

- /usr/share/gnome/wm-properties/ owned by control-center-filesystem
- /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps -> hicolor-icon-theme
- /usr/share/kde4/apps/ksmserver/windowmanagers/ - this one is a bit
problematic. Actually, this directory should be owned by kde-filesystem but
instead it's owned by kdebase-runtime (with really large dependency chain). We
have special policy for the these cases:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function

I advise you to add dependency on kde-filesystem (which is really tiny and
doesn't require any other additional packages) and explicitly claim ownership
on /usr/share/kde4/apps/ksmserver/ and
/usr/share/kde4/apps/ksmserver/windowmanagers/.

+ 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.