[Bug 746520] Review Request: findthatword - A word search maker

[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=746520

--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-10-17 18:51:28 EDT ---
There are some unnecessary elements of this spec file, unless you intend to
also use it for EPEL.  They are:
- The python_sitelib definition at the top (now defined in /usr/lib/rpm/macros)
- the BuildRoot tag
- the "-p0" on the %patch invocations
- "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the start of %install
- the %clean script
- %defattr in the %files section

Since the icon is an SVG, it should be installed into
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps instead of its current location.

This package creates %{python_sitelib}/findthatword, then doesn't put the
Python files into it; they're directly inside %{python_sitelib} instead.

The findthatword.desktop file uses a deprecated tag, Encoding:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/apc.html.

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output:
findthatword.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wordsearch -> word
search, word-search, Wordsworth
findthatword.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary findthatword
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

The description has one instance of "word search" and one of "wordsearch", so
you probably should change the latter to match the former.

[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[+] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 025886ae0f30dc1cabeebca21987c82f for both
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[N] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: minimal testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts: yes, technically there
should be a man page for findthatword(1), but since it would be trivial, I
don't see the point.

-- 
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.