[Bug 728757] Review Request: gnumed - The gnumed client

[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=728757

--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar at redhat.com> 2011-08-10 09:38:50 EDT ---
Review follows.

MUST items:
- rpmlint output is ok
gnumed.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C gnumed
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sebastian -> Sebastian
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hilbert -> Hilbert,
filbert, Dilbert
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmx -> gm, gm x
gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US karsten -> Kirsten
gnumed.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/gnumed-0.9.9/GnuPublicLicense.txt
gnumed.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C gnumed
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxpython -> python, Python
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sebastian -> Sebastian
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hilbert -> Hilbert,
filbert, Dilbert
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmx -> gm, gm x
gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US karsten -> Kirsten
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.

Please ask upstream to update the FSF address and consider expanding the
summary a bit. Not blockers.

- package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- the spec file name matches the base package %{name}
? the package meets the Packaging Guidelines
  - some Requires seem odd, are aspell, file, mx, kdepim, texlive really
needed?
  - is there a point in installing man pages for binaries that are not
packaged?
? the license is GPL, but the version is unclear. The sources only mention GPL.
Please ask upstream to add a README file to clarify under which GPL version
it's licensed or include an email with their response, as stated in the Fedora
Licensing Guidelines.
- the package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines (GPLv?)
? the License field in the package spec file may not match the actual license
(unknown yet)
- 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
  - I'd suggest to wrap the installation of locales in a for loop
- the source used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
  ec0abfd95dcf8b5cfbca5368dcfcc99d  gnumed-client.0.9.9.tgz
- the package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (x86_64)
- all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
- the spec file handles locales properly
- the package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries
- the package owns all directories that it creates or depends on packages that
provide them
- 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 consistently uses macros
- the package contains code, or permissable content
- all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8


SHOULD items:
- the package builds in mock
- the package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

- I've not tested whether the package functions as described

-- 
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.