[Bug 675426] Review Request: imap-upload - A tool for uploading a local mbox file to IMAP4 server
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Mar 26 15:38:29 UTC 2011
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=675426
Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |fabian at bernewireless.net
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fabian at bernewireless.net
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net> 2011-03-26 11:38:28 EDT ---
Package Review
==============
Package:
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[?] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[?] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[?] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
[?] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
Tested on: F14/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[fab at laptop023 SRPMS]$ rpmlint imap-upload-1.2-2.fc14.src.rpm
imap-upload.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mbox -> box, m box, mb
ox
imap-upload.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mbox -> box, m
box, mb ox
imap-upload.src: E: unknown-key GPG#a9e6e953
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[fab at laptop023 noarch]$ rpmlint imap-upload-1.2-2.fc14.noarch.rpm
imap-upload.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mbox -> box, m box,
mb ox
imap-upload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mbox -> box, m
box, mb ox
imap-upload.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imap_upload.py
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable
[x] Buildroot is correct (if it's still used)
master :
spec file: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
License type: MIT
[x] 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 is included in %doc
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
Upstream source: bd1a0ea13e0e77707c6ac87ea5240ff2 imap-upload-1.2.zip
Build source: bd1a0ea13e0e77707c6ac87ea5240ff2 imap-upload-1.2.zip
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
[-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales
[-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
[x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (if it's still
used)
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT (if it's still used)
[-] Included tests passed successfully
[x] Package consistently uses macros
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content
[x] Included filenames are in UTF-8
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
[-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
[-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
[x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
[-] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI
application
[-] Follows desktop entry spec
[-] Valid .desktop Name
[-] Valid .desktop GenericName
[-] Valid .desktop Categories
[-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
[-] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
[-] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
[x] Latest version is packaged
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
[x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
[?] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2948449
[x] Package functions as described
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
[-] File based requires are sane
[x] Changelog in allowed format
- A license statement in the source header would be nice. If you ask, maybe
upstream will add one.
- There are many white lines in the description. Consider removing them because
the graphical package management tools often only provide small areas for the
description.
This two thing are no blocker just annotations.
Beside that I see no further blocker, package 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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list