[Bug 666409] Review Request: t4k_common - Library for Tux4Kids applications

[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=666409

Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |brendan.jones.it at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> 2011-02-23 06:39:47 EST ---
Hi Jon,

I've put together an informal review for you here. Comments denoted by ***

Great project.

+ OK
- N/A
! Problem
? Not evaluated

Required
=========
[+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces

rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/t4k_common-*
t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math,
tux-math, Tuxtla
t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type,
tux-type, Tuxtla
t4k_common.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libt4k_common.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux
math, tux-math, Tuxtla
t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux
type, tux-type, Tuxtla
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

rpmlint ../SRPMS/t4k_common-0.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math,
tux-math, Tuxtla
t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type,
tux-type, Tuxtla
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
    *** upstream package contains an underscore, so this is ok
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
    *** NOTE: no longer need %clean/cleaning of the buildroot in %install
unless building for F12 and below  or EPEL   
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[+] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[!] A package must own all directories that it creates
    *** line 54: must own %{_datadir}/%{name} - do not need to qualify files or
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
[!] Each package must consistently use macros
    *** use %{name} macro in Source0
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Should Items
============
[-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[?] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[?] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] 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 contain man pages for binaries/scripts
    *** no man pages in upstream package



-- 
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

-- 
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.