[Bug 624182] Review Request: stardict-xmllittre - Authoritative 19th century French dictionary

Mon Oct 3 19:33:53 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=624182

--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann <mariobl at freenet.de> 2011-10-03 15:33:50 EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *stardict-xmllittre.src: I: checking
stardict-xmllittre.src: I: checking-url
http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/horsligne.php (timeout 10 seconds)
stardict-xmllittre.src: I: checking-url
http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/dlds/XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar (timeout
10 seconds)
stardict-xmllittre.noarch: I: checking
stardict-xmllittre.noarch: I: checking-url
http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/horsligne.php (timeout 10 seconds)
stardict-xmllittre.spec: I: checking-url
http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/dlds/XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar (timeout
10 seconds)
stardict-xmllittre.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/dlds/XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar ''
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The URL seems to be unavailable, but with wget I can download the tarball.
However, the server is terribly slow.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    As far as I can read in the sources (or as detected by my translation 
    software, because it's French only), there's no implicit declaration
    of GPLv3. Seems to be rather GPL+ than GPLv3. Would you explain
    the French README please?

[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[.] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum *
    263506fab62afafda6a37c3f398bf994  XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar
    263506fab62afafda6a37c3f398bf994  XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar.packaged

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    - Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
    separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
    I assume the packager has tested it.  I don't speak French, let alone
    this version of French.

[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

If you don't want to provide your package for EPEL <= 6, you may drop the
following parts of your spec file:

- the BuildRoot declaration.
- the initial cleaning of ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} in %install
- the %defattr line in %files

-- 
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.