[Bug 705043] Review Request: paco - a source code package organizer for Unix

[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=705043

--- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2011-07-18 08:57:23 EDT ---
I'm not sure whether paco-gui is the best name for the GUI package; I would
just name it gpaco. You can do this by specifying
 %package -n gpaco
instead of 
 %package gui
and the thing for %files as well.

**

rpmlint output:
paco.src:23: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
paco.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaco-log.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
paco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocap
paco-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation
paco-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpaco
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.


The configure-without-libdir-spec warning is probably caused by the ./configure
in the %description, and is as such erroneus.

Since this is a C++ program, there's no need to call exit, as one can throw
exceptions instead. However, this change would need to be done by upstream.

Other warnings are OK.

**

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. 
 NEEDSWORK
- Macro styles mixed.
- Please remove the unnecessary empty lines in -gui, e.g., the empty line at
the start of the %description ends up in the result rpm as well.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NEEDSWORK
- As stated by Martin above in comment #5, the license is somewhat badly
defined.
- gpaco/about.cc defines a GPLv2+ license, so do lib/paco/getopt.h and
lib/paco/getopt.cc.
- License tag should reflect the license of the result, which is anyway in this
case GPL+ + GPLv2+ = GPLv2+.
- Please change License tag to GPLv2+ and ask upstream to add proper license
headers in every source code file.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
$ md5sum paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2 
d2debbea1b11156470f7fd849bb93c80  paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2
d2debbea1b11156470f7fd849bb93c80  ../SOURCES/paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A

**

This package is in pretty good shape, so you'll just need to do another
submission and a couple of informal reviews as instructed in comment #12.

-- 
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.