[Bug 683684] Review Request: dtrx - Intelligent archive extractor

[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=683684

--- Comment #5 from Sergio Belkin <sebelk at gmail.com> 2011-03-16 17:51:59 EDT ---
Hi Mohamed!

(In reply to comment #4)
> Great :)
> This should be OK. Only one test failed in %check, but it tries to download a
> distant archive to be tested. No matter here.
> Here is the review.
> 
> MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
> ->OK, no serious warning
> 
> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
>       %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> ->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.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in
>       its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
>       the package must be included in %doc.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
>       provided in the spec URL.
> ->OK, md5sum = 8297bd906088aedee840a32450efb1a2
> 
> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
>       least one primary architecture.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
>       architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
>       ExcludeArch.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>       that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
>       inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
> ->NOK: rpm is already required by rpm-build, so it can be removed from the
> BuildRequires
> 
> MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
>       %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
> files
>       (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
>       call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
>       considered a blocker.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
>       a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
>       create that directory.
> >OK
> 
> MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
>       %files listings. 
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
>       executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
>       %defattr(...) line.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
> of
>       the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
>       properly if it is not present.
> ->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 (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
>       then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 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: Requires: %{name} =
>       %{version}-%{release}.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
>       in the spec if they are built.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
>       and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
>       %install section.
> ->N/A
> 
> MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
>       packages.
> ->OK
> 
> MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> ->OK
> 
> Two small issues anyway:
> * You could remove p7zip from the BuildRequires, since it is already required
> by p7zip-plugins

OK, I will remove it.

> * you could also remove, as said above, rpm from the BR, since it is already
> required by rpm-build which is part of the minimum build env. (see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions_2)

Oh Thanks point it, I skipped "There is no need to include the following
packages *or their dependencies*"

> 
> Anyway this package is APPROVED. I trust you to fix the issues above before
> import. :)

Thanks Mohamed, in fact I'm fixing it and importing soon :)

-- 
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.