[Bug 733603] Review Request: sugar-ruler - Ruler is a simple collection of measurement tools that are displayed on the screen.

[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=733603

--- Comment #9 from Kalpa Welivitigoda <callkalpa at gmail.com> 2011-09-01 06:14:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'll do a review. I'm not a sponsor, so this is informal.
> 
> 
> FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint sugar-ruler-11-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ruler is a simple collection
> of measurement tools that are displayed on the screen.
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Ruler is a simple collection of
> measurement tools that are displayed on the screen.
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
> /usr/share/locale/cpp/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
> /usr/share/locale/nah/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir
> /usr/share/locale/templates/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
> /usr/share/locale/templates/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo
>   sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
> /usr/share/locale/ton/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo
>   1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings.
>     Some ideas: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues
> OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
> OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
> OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
> FIX - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+)
>   You must specify a GPL version (see the COPYING file on upstream source)
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL
> FIX - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
> OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
> OK - MUST: spec is in American English
> OK - MUST: spec is legible
> OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
> OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
> N/A - 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.
> OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
>   Suggestion: Use a seperate BuildRequires line for each dependency
> OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
> 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.
> OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
> N/A - 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.
> OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
> OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
> OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
> FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros
>   Use %{__python} on %install section as well
> OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
> N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
> OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
> N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
> N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
> N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package.
> N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
> versioned dependency
> OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
> N/A - MUST: Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop
> file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
> %install section.
> OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages.
> OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8
> 
> 
> SHOULD Items:
> OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
> N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
> OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures.
> OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
> OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane.
> N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency.
> N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
> OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
> /usr/sbin
> N/A - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
> FIX - SHOULD: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
> %{buildroot}
>   It could be a good idea to add this for compatibility reasons.
> 
> Other items:
> OK - latest stable version
> OK - SourceURL valid
> OK - Compiler flags ok
> OK - Debuginfo complete
> FIX - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
>   Same as above, for the %install section
> N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
> pkgconfig'.

Thanks for the info. Here are the new files with fixes,

Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-ruler/sugar-ruler.spec
SRPM URL:
http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-ruler/sugar-ruler-11-5.fc15.src.rpm

-- 
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.