[Bug 646611] Rename review: drupal-cck -> drupal6-cck

[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=646611

--- Comment #13 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27 at gmx.at> 2011-01-19 21:57:59 EST ---
Here we go:

The original drupal package has a provide called drupal6. As the cck spec file
only requires drupal6, that won't work properly. If you only decide to update
cck, but leave drupal as it is, the update will run and install cck into
/usr/share/drupal6. I assume it would also delete the original module from
/usr/share/drupal.

The way out might be declaring an epoch in the drupal6 package and require that
in cck.

By the way, there is a new version of cck!

If you can find the time, please align the columns!

____________
drupal6.spec

...

Epoch:     1
Obsoletes: drupal <= 6.20

...
____________
drupal6-cck.spec

...

Requires:  drupal6 >= 2:6.20
Obsoletes: drupal-cck <= 6.x.2.8

...
____________

Please also notice the operator <= instead of >=! The operators are also wrong
in the other renamed packages, I think.

Please always write detailed changelogs for the spec file.

The review so far:


[+] Good
[x] Needs work
[0] Does not apply

MUST:
=====

[+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[x] Packaging guidelines met: See comments on obsoletes
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible (but please align!)
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: b4ee90587dacefcb290f7f9bbf49ea40
[+] Builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture:
[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented:
[0] All build dependencies listed
[0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries:
[0] No bundled system libraries
[0] Stated as relocatable package
[+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does
[+] No file listing duplicates
[+] File permissions correct
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Code or permissible content
[0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc
[0] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[0] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[0] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8

SHOULD:
=======

[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock: (tested fedora-rawhide-x86_64)
[0] Scriptlets are sane, if used
[0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned)
[0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage
[0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider
requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself
[0] Contain man pages, where they make sense

I didn't try whether it works, but can't see a reason why it shouldn't.

MISSING 
=======

[] rpmlint: (will run it on the final file):

-- 
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.