[Bug 666943] Review Request: Ignuit - Memorization aid based on the Leitner flashcard system
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 17 20:36:49 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=666943
Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |martin.gieseking at uos.de
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking at uos.de
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-02-17 15:36:47 EST ---
Hi Christoph,
the package looks fine. Just three minor notes:
- According to COPYING.extras, some of the icons are licensed under GPLv2 only.
Thus, the License tag should be "GPLv3+ and GPLv2".
- The macro file texinfo.tex shouldn't be packaged as it's of no use here.
- If you want to maintain ignuit for EPEL < 6 too, you must use scrollkeeper
rather than rarian (and call scrollkeeper-update in %post/%postun).
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
ignuit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formulae -> formula,
formulate, formulas
ignuit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formulae -> formula,
formulate, formulas
ignuit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ignuit.schemas
ignuit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ignuit
ignuit.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
ignuit.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
All warnings can be ignored:
- spelling errors are false positive
- GConf schema files must not be tagged with %config
- no manpage available
- rm commands are part of %gconf_schema_FOO
---------------------------------
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- appplication: GPLv3+
- icons from gnome-icon-theme: GPLv2
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- should be "GPLv3+ and GPLv2" (plus a short comment)
[+] MUST: The 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.
$ md5sum ignuit-0.0.16.tar.gz*
9edaf56cbae79d5b0b71f581beacaa6f ignuit-0.0.16.tar.gz
9edaf56cbae79d5b0b71f581beacaa6f ignuit-0.0.16.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc 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), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: .desktop files 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.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, ...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list