[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog

[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=720857

--- Comment #25 from Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de> 2012-01-10 20:02:14 EST ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

- rpmlint is not silent and some messages may not be ignored
  datalog.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Datalog
  - This is ok in this context

  datalog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/lua/5.1/datalog.lua
  - You need to remove the executable bit on the permissions of this file

  datalog.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/lua/5.1/datalog.lua
  datalog.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/datalog-1.7/COPYING.LIB
datalog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/datalog-1.7/interp.c
  - This must be fixed, it changed a couple of years ago

  datalog.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datalog
  - This is ok for now, but I'd recommend to add one to the project

  datalog-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on datalog/datalog-libs/libdatalog
  - this must be added as the devel sub-package contains a symlink to a file of
the main package

  datalog-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Datalog header file and
library.
  - This must be fixed

  datalog-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL
  - This must be fixed, it is something like LGPLv2 or LGPLv2+, cf. wiki about
acceptable licenses

  datalog-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
  - Is there any API documentation you might add here? Otherwise this is ok.


+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
  See rpmlint comment above.

(-) The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license ().
  Will re-check if license tag is fixed

+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

package# sha256sum ../../SOURCES/datalog-1.7.tar.gz 
35f003754591a3ae623269b78321063fc3a09a332001cc8c95587502aaf6f5d1 
../../SOURCES/datalog-1.7.tar.gz
downloaded# sha256sum datalog-1.7.tar.gz 
35f003754591a3ae623269b78321063fc3a09a332001cc8c95587502aaf6f5d1 
datalog-1.7.tar.gz
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ Spec file calls ldconfig
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  See rpmlint
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files in devel sub-package
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ Non-suffix so file is in devel sub-package
- Devel sub-package does not require main package
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

There remain a few action items that you see in the rpmlint section. Happy
fixing,

-- 
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.