[Bug 693950] Review Request: yagf - Graphical front-end for cuneiform

[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=693950

Volker Fröhlich <volker27 at gmx.at> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #17 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27 at gmx.at> 2011-08-19 19:56:59 EDT ---
====================
===== APPROVED =====
====================

Comment:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache

The sample scriptlets use absolute paths to the binaries. You may opt to do
that as well.

---------------------

Review:

[+] Good
[-] Needs work
[0] Does not apply

MUST:
=====
[+] rpmlint:
[makerpm at fedora15 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/yagf-0.8.6-6.fc15.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/yagf-*0.8.6-6.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
yagf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing ->
reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing
yagf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing ->
reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing
yagf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yagf
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

    No additional findings with rpmlint on the installed package.

[+] 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: 16582668d9ae34567c4f159c3208bfca
[+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture:
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3287672

[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented
[+] Locales are handled correctly
[+] All build dependencies listed
[0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries
[+] 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
[+] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8
[0] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it
won't conflict with the main package.
[0] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages
must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior
setup.

SHOULD:
=======

[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock:
    fedora-rawhide-x86_64, fedora-16-i386, fedora-15-x86_64
[+] Package works as described -- I played around a little bit.
[+] 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
[0] Contain man pages, where they make sense

    It is a GUI application and there is online help.

rpm -qp --requires look fine as well.

-- 
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.