[Bug 699168] Review Request: routino - Router for OpenStreetMap Data

[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=699168

--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27 at gmx.at> 2011-04-25 15:56:21 EDT ---
[+] Good
[x] Needs work
[0] Does not apply

MUST:
=====

[+] rpmlint:

routino.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set,
data-set, database
routino.x86_64: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-filedumper
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-planetsplitter
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-planetsplitter-slim
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-tagmodifier
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-router
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-filedumper-slim
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-router-slim
routino-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+
routino.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set,
data-set, database
routino.src: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.

Upstream doesn't provide man-pages. AGPLv3+ was forgotten to be listed as a
valid license. That's solved in the wiki so far (Spot).

[+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[+] Packaging guidelines met
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches code
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: a664772cfa7ba413cd16eae59321c644
[+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture:

See KK above!

[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented
[0] Locales are handled correctly
[+] All build dependencies listed
[0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries
[0] No bundled system libraries
[0] Stated as relocatable package
[+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does
[+] No file listing duplicates
[+] File permissions correct
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Code or permissible content
[0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc
[0] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[0] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8

SHOULD:
=======

[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock: Rawhide, EPEL 6
[?] Package works as described -- Haven't tried
[0] Scriptlets are sane, if used
[0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned)
[0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage
[0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider
requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself
[x] Contain man pages, where they make sense

Probably query upstream on this issue.

--------
APPROVED
--------

-- 
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.