[Bug 675726] Review Request: cdm - Very minimalistic display manager

[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=675726

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-02-24 05:22:44 EST ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is NOT silent but all its messages can be omitted in this case:

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/cdm-0.5.3-4.fc15.noarch.rpm 
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist,
minimalism, materialistic
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist,
minimalism, materialistic
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US login -> loin, logic, lo
gin
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kdm -> km, Adm, Kim
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gdm -> gm, gem, gum
cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qingy -> dingy, mingy,
zingy

^^^ False positive.

cdm.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/zzz-cdm-profile.sh

^^^ That's ok - this file is not intented to be changed by end-=user.

cdm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdm

^^^ Unfortunately this binary doesn't have corresponding man-page. So no luck
for us here too.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later).
+ The 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.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz*
fb9ada13d3416305828c99943698fe7df3b0ab91bd6099e7b2707e1d8dd99a23 
cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz
fb9ada13d3416305828c99943698fe7df3b0ab91bd6099e7b2707e1d8dd99a23 
cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Apparently, this packages is a GUI application, but we don't need a *.desktop
file for starting it from other desktops.it. It is a desktop itself.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, I can't find any other issues, so this package is

APPROVED.

-- 
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.