[Bug 698067] Review Request: hiredis - A C client library for redis

[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=698067

Volker Fröhlich <volker27 at gmx.at> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27 at gmx.at> 2011-05-14 15:38:20 EDT ---
It's common to leave out the full stop in the changelog, as it is more like a
list of things.

By the way: INSTALL_LIB seems to be useless. Must be some leftover.

The summary says, the package was a "client". I think this should be "client
library".

I encourage you to create a sub-package for the test and example file, to keep
the library package small, or delete it at all, if it is not useful.

FYI:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel.mentors/browse_thread/thread/b2f55966e1c58e69/c1f15d9e4289fe45?lnk=raot&fwc=1
----------------------------------------

Review:

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

MUST:
=====

[+] rpmlint:
[makerpm at fedora14 adapters]$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/hiredis-0.10.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/hiredis-*0.10.0-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm 
hiredis.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist,
Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic ->
minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.src: W: invalid-url Source0: antirez-hiredis-v0.10.0-3-gdf203bc.tar.gz
hiredis.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist,
Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic ->
minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism
hiredis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hiredis-example
hiredis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hiredis-test
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

[+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[+] Packaging guidelines met
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches code
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: b32b930e5e1ee007594c1056c3ff1c0e
[+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture
[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented
[0] Locales are handled correctly
[+] All build dependencies listed
[+] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries
[+] 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
[+] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[+] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[+] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[+] 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: Tried epel-6-x86_64 and fedora-rawhide-i386
[?] Package works as described -- Haven't tried
[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

--------
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.