[Bug 573910] Review Request: dcmtk - Offis DICOM Toolkit

[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=573910

--- Comment #31 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-04-20 10:43:28 EDT ---
Ok, good.

REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is not silent however all its messages can be safely omitted:


work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/dcmtk-*
dcmtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Offis -> Offs, Offish, Off is
dcmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US worklist -> work list,
work-list, workstation

^^^ false positive 

dcmtk.src:92: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
dcmtk.src:93: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
dcmtk.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib}
dcmtk.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
dcmtk.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
dcmtk.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib}
dcmtk.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib}
dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib}
dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
dcmtk.src:135: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
dcmtk.src:135: W: macro-in-comment %{name}

^^^ that's ok - just a commented out strings. You should just remove them later 

dcmtk.src:69: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 68, tab: line 69)

^^ cosmetic.

dcmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Offis -> Offs, Offish, Off is
dcmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US worklist -> work list,
work-list, workstation

^^^ false positives

dcmtk.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ld.so.conf.d/dcmtk.conf

^^^ That's by design. This file isn't designed to be replaced by user.

dcmtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dcmsign-3.6.0

^^^ that's ok.

dcmtk-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

^^^ false positive.

dcmtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

^^^ by design - we just don't provide any docs with devel sub-package.

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 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 matches the actual license.
+ 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 dcmtk-3.6.0.tar.gz*
cfc509701122adfa359f1ee160e943c1548c7696b607dbb646c5a06f015ed33a 
dcmtk-3.6.0.tar.gz
cfc509701122adfa359f1ee160e943c1548c7696b607dbb646c5a06f015ed33a 
dcmtk-3.6.0.tar.gz.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.
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 MUST  own all directories that it creates. The following
directories are left unowned:

/etc/dcmtk
/usr/lib64/dcmtk
/usr/share/dcmtk
/usr/share/doc/dcmtk-3.6.0


+ 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.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, please claim ownership on the directories mentioned above, and I'll
continue.

-- 
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.