[Bug 666455] Review Request: sdcv - Console version of StarDict program

[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=666455

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-01-13 06:06:32 EST ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is silent

work ~: rpmlint Desktop/sdcv-*
sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) Console 
sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) version 
sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) of 
sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) program 
sdcv.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sdcv/sdcv/0.4.2/sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2
<urlopen error timed out>
sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) Console 
sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) version 
sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) of 
sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) program 
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
work ~: 

All thgese messages are false positives and may be omitted.

+ 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. Just one cosmetic note - you'd
better to add a line break between sections, such as between %files and
%changelog. Also I don't think that installing almost empty README and (clearly
not intended for end-users) TODO is useful, but it's up to you to decide
whether or not to package it. Also I suggest you to package doc/DICTFILE_FORMAT
as %doc file.

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license
(GPLv2+). The file src/lib/distance.cpp is licensed under GPL w/o stating
explicit GPL version (thuns it is licensed under GPL+), but its contents is
relicensed under GPLv2+ while linking.

+ 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 sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2*
a164f079e93986814ea2d39f3a49cf9d1b71b01aad908254457fe3d0ded9deb2 
sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2
a164f079e93986814ea2d39f3a49cf9d1b71b01aad908254457fe3d0ded9deb2 
sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro).
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 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.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm. Beware.
+ 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 without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ 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.

So, please, fix the License tag, and I'll continue. The rest of my notes are
not a blocker ones.

-- 
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.