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=765802
--- Comment #1 from Christian Krause <chkr(a)plauener.de> 2011-12-18 18:37:49 EST ---
Sorry for the delay, here is now the full review:
* rpmlint: OK (one minor non-blocking TODO)
rpmlint RPMS/noarch/indimpc-0-0.20111209.git.fc16.noarch.rpm
SRPMS/indimpc-0-0.20111209.git.fc16.src.rpm SPECS/indimpc.spec
indimpc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
indimpc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd
indimpc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keybinder -> key
binder, key-binder, bindery
indimpc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indimpc
indimpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
indimpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd
indimpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keybinder -> key binder,
key-binder, bindery
indimpc.src: W: strange-permission fmoralesc-indimpc-2313a1a.tar.gz 0640L
indimpc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fmoralesc-indimpc-2313a1a.tar.gz
SPECS/indimpc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fmoralesc-indimpc-2313a1a.tar.gz
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
These warnings are false-positives:
- spelling errors for words not found in the dictionary
- invalid Source0 URL: normal for VCS checkouts
- no manual: not provided by upstream
TODO: I don't think that the source tarball needs to be world-readable, but it
would be probably better to change its permission to 644 to avoid the rpmlint
warning.
* naming: OK
- name does matches upstream
- spec file name matches package name
* version/release tags: OK
- all rules for snapshot builds correctly applied
* License: OK
- license file packaged: OK
- BSD acceptable
* specfile in American English and legible: OK
* %description: OK
* Sources: TODO
- the source matches upstream's git HEAD
- although
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
is not very specific whether it is required, I strongly recommend to add the
commands used to reproduce the exact tarball (should include git commit hash)
* Python specific defines: OK (with non-blocking TODO)
- unless you plan to support RHEL 5 or older it is not necessary to define
python_sitelib / _sitearch anymore:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
* Compilation: OK
- package does build in koji
* debuginfo sub-package: n/a
* BuildRequires: OK
* Requires: TODO
- since indimpc starts ncmpc++ (in a gnome-terminal) per default, I suggest
adding gnome-terminal and ncmpcpp as Requires
- since indimpc's .desktop file uses GNOME's stock icon
"gnome-multimedia"
please add gnome-icon-theme-legacy as additional Requires
* %install section: OK (non-blocking TODO)
- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not necessary in any recent Fedora releases
* Locales handling: OK (n/a)
* shared/static libs, pkgconfig/header/*.la files: OK (n/a)
* packages must own all directories: OK
* files not listed twice: OK
* permissions of files: OK
* %clean section: OK (n/a)
* macro usage: OK
* code vs. content: OK (no content)
* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)
* GUI application needs %{name}.desktop: OK
* no directories owned which are already owned by other packages: OK
* all file names UTF8: OK
* functional test: OK
- indimpc works fine in gnome-shell
* Scriptlets: OK (n/a)
Summary:
- Package looks good!
- two blocking issues:
* document how exactly the tarball can be reproduced
* add missing Requires
--
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.