[Bug 722843] Review Request: synergy - Share mouse and keyboard between multiple computers over the network

[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=722843

--- Comment #5 from Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de> 2011-09-11 10:18:20 EDT ---
One minor remark:

The provided spec file is does not match the spec file in the src.rpm, this
makes it hard to distinguish which one is the newest: please always keep them
in sync. ;-) 


Here now the complete review:

* rpmlint: TODO
rpmlint RPMS/i686/synergy-* SRPMS/synergy-1.3.7-2.fc15.src.rpm
SPECS/synergy.spec 
 synergy.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided synergy-plus
-> according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
the new package should have a "Provides" for the replaced package

 synergy.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/synergy-1.3.7/COPYING
-> you may report this to upstream, but it won't block the review

 synergy.src: W: strange-permission synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz 0444L
-> false positive

 synergy.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
-> false positive, the URL is correct (tested with "spectool -g synergy.spec"),
the root cause is a wrong HTTP answer from googlecode.com web server which  is
a long outstanding bug ;-)

 SPECS/synergy.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
-> same false positive as above

 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

* naming: OK
- spec file name matches package name

* sources: OK
- Source tag ok
- spectool -g works

* License: OK
- GPLv2 is a Fedora approved License
- License in spec file matches the actual license (as mentioned in the source
files)
- License file packaged

* spec file written in American English and legible: OK

* buildroot: TODO
- %clean not necessary anymore
- rm -rf in %install not necessary anymore
- specification of BuildRoot is not necessary anymore
- see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

* compilation: OK
- builds fine in koji: rawhide

* BuildRequires: OK

* Requires: OK (n/a)

* bundled copies of system libraries: OK (n/a)

* locales handling: OK (n/a)

* ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a)

* package owns all directories that it creates: OK

* %files section: OK

* no files listed twice in %files: OK

* file permissions: OK

* macro usage: OK

* code vs. content: OK (no content)

* main package should not contain development related parts: OK (n/a)

* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)

* header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a)

* static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a)

* *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a)

* devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: (n/a)

* packages must not contain *.la files: OK (n/a)

* GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a)

* packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK

* all filenames UTF-8: OK

* debuginfo sub-package: OK
- package contains source
- debugging works

* functional test: OK

Summary:
The packages is in a very good shape, there are only the 2 minor items:
- to be in accordance with the guidelines, let the package provide synergy-plus
- although the buildroot issue would not really block the review, please
fix this as well to have a nice and clean spec file

-- 
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.