[Bug 782957] Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X

Thu Feb 9 11:17:12 UTC 2012

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=782957

--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata <psabata at redhat.com> 2012-02-09 06:17:10 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== C/C++ ====
[-]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required

     Ok.  Needed in EPEL6.

[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
     file-install file if it is a GUI application.

     This is a window manager and the desktop file there is used for xsessions.
     desktop-file-install shouldn't be used in this case.

     However, I'd recommend putting it to an extra file in git rather than
     having it in spec...

[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/782957/musca-0.9.24.tgz :
  MD5SUM this package     : e067a8e39b1a97d62fc8e43800edee70
  MD5SUM upstream package : e067a8e39b1a97d62fc8e43800edee70
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
     separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
     include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
TODO: dmenu is EPEL6-only package, therefore you could safely remove
EPEL5 features of your spec file (BuildRoot tag, buildroot removal in
%install, and %defattr in %files)
TIP: The %description is almost the same as Summary; you could use the
first item from the list on musca website there, I suppose.  That would
also give users unfamiliar with ratpoison or dwm an idea what this
package is about.
TIP: Put the .desktop file contents in an extra git file.  But this is
just about personal preferences...
TODO: Unfortunatelly, Packaging Guidelines list coreutils and sed package
only in the minimum build environment, not runtime -- that depends on the
specific compose.  You should list those two in your Requires.
FIX: You'll have to patch config.h to call dmenu_run for Fedora16+ or
it won't work as you expect (xmonad had the same issue, see bug #757435).
I know you plan this mainly for EPEL but you're going to get the Rawhide
branch (at least) anyway.
TODO: Use the -p option with your install commands to preserve timestamps.

Consider fixing the optional TODO points in addition to the config.h patch.
Not approving yet.

Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:

-- 
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.