[Bug 767838] Review Request: libclastfm - Unofficial C-API for the Last.fm web service

Fri Dec 16 11:51:13 UTC 2011

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=767838

--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014 at gmail.com> 2011-12-16 06:51:13 EST ---
Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fm -> FM, Fm, gm
libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fm -> FM, Fm, gm
libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl,
lib-curl, curlicue
libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distros -> bistros,
distress
libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrobble -> scribble,
scrabble, Scrabble
libclastfm.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
libclastfm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libclastfm-20111214gitcc78dde5.tar.bz2
libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fm -> FM, Fm, gm
libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fm -> FM, Fm, gm
libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl,
lib-curl, curlicue
libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distros -> bistros,
distress
libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrobble ->
scribble, scrabble, Scrabble
libclastfm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libclastfm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libclastfm/src/md5.c
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.
These warnings can be safely ignored.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}

[=] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
See below

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
MD5 sum=9d6ba4b9f5209b42ab2170d37928a830 for both the embedded source archive
in the SRPM and an archive geerated from upstream's VCS

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.

[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.

[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.

[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.

[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.

[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.

[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.

[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.

[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 

[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.

[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.

[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Juste two suggestions, before approving this package:
- since autoconf is already required by libtool, you could remove autoconf from
the BuildRequires
- unless you intend to maintain libclastfm for EPEL 5, you should remove the
%clean section in you .spec file, as well as all the BuildRoot cleans and the
BuildRoot tag:
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

-- 
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.