[Bug 773470] Review Request: muffin - Window and compositing manager based on Clutter

[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=773470

--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr at sylvestre.me> 2012-02-02 05:13:34 EST ---
Most of the package looks good. Things that need to be changed:

- please update description to say muffin is meant to be used as part of
Cinnamon
- provide instructions to generate the tarball (see full review below)
- query upstream about their tagging policy (the tag in git should perhaps be
  3.2.1 not 1.0.0). Include link to the issue as a comment to the source
- update GConf schema scriptlet; there are now macros replacing the old shell
  script invocations


#+TODO: TODO(t) WAIT(w@/!) FAIL(f@) | DONE(d) N/A(n)

* TODO Review [66%]
  - [X] Names [2/2]
    - [X] Package name
    - [X] Spec name
  - [-] Package version [1/2]
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
    - [X] Version number
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag

          matches version in source code

    - [ ] Release tag
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

          The last revision on the git repo has been tagged, bizarrely, 1.0.0 .
          If this is what you use to generate the tarball, then you can use the
          release naming scheme; if not you'd have to use the pre-release one
          (and encode the commit checksum in the release tag field)

          Please ask upstream about their tagging policy, and if possible ask
          them to rename the 1.0.0 tag to 3.2.1? That would avoid confusion in
          the future. If you file an issue on the Github issue tracker about
this,
          just put a comment above the Source line with the summary and URL
  - [X] Meets
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]]
  - [ ] Source files match upstream
        Please generate the archive in a reproducible way: e.g.
        git clone git://github.com/linuxmint/muffin.git
        (cd muffin && git archive --format=tar --prefix=muffin-%%{version}/ \
         1.0.0 \ <-- this really should be %%{version} but now the tag is 1.0.0
        ) | xz -9 > muffin-%%{version}.tar.xz

        you can use bz2 as well but xz is preferred, esp by GNOME upstream

  - [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No
bundled libraries]]
        I don't see any
  - [X] License [4/4]
    - [X] License is Fedora-approved
    - [X] No licensing conflict
    - [X] License field accurate
    - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream
  - [-] rpmlint [1/2]
    - [ ] on src.rpm
      (filtering out bogus spelling errors)

      muffin.src: W: no-url-tag
      muffin.src:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
8)
      muffin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: muffin-3.2.1.tar.xz

      source issue is discussed above. for spaces and tab, decide
      which you want to use for indenting for using spaces, if you use
      Emacs, Ctrl-X H Esc-X untabify will convert tabs to spaces
      throughout the file

    - [X] on x86_64.rpm
      (filtering out issues that are identical to SRPM)

      -debuginfo and -devel have many incorrect-fsf-address errors; this is
      harmless

      These are the real warnings;
      muffin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmuffin.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
      muffin.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/muffin.schemas

      Both are also present in mutter; I'd ignore the first, and the second is
      a bit misleading as schemas are not really configuration files.

      So there is no real problem in the generated binaries.

  - [X] Language & locale [3/3]
    - [X] Spec in US English
    - [X] Spec legible
    - [X] Use %find_lang to handle locale files
  - [X] Build [3/3]
    - [X] Koji results
      http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754662
    - [X] BRs complete
    - [X] Directory ownership
  - [X] Spec inspection [8/8]
    - [X] ldconfig for libraries
    - [X] No duplicate files
    - [X] File permissions
    - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8
    - [X] no BuildRoot
([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if
targeting RHEL5]])
    - [X] Macro usage consistent
    - [X] Documentation [1/1]
      - [X] %doc files are non-essential
    - [X] Development [4/4]
      - [X] Headers in -devel
      - [X] If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel
      - [X] -devel, -static requires main
      - [X] No .la
  - [X] Desktop file validation
  - [ ]
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets][Scriptlets]] [0/4]
    - [ ] GConf
      Please migrate to newer GConf-handling macros; they are easier to
      maintain:

      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#GConf

-- 
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.