[Bug 220210] Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-12-28 05:08 EST -------
Though I am not willing, I will attach a detail for sumbitter's benefit.

>From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
= Naming of this package is good
= License documentation is included
= License is OSI approved
= License documentation is actually consistent with
  the ones actually used in source files.
= No shareware data is included
= No patents issue is found
= This is not a emulators
= This is not a binary firmware
= No libexecdir files is needed as no wrapper scripts are
  needed
= rpmlint is silent
= Changelog entry is proper
= Tag is correctly used
= Build root tag is okay
= Generally "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" description
  is not needed, however, I don't object to this.
= Dependencies other than libraries' dependencies
  automatically added by rpmbuild is not necessary
= BuildRequires is enough: mockbuild is okay for FC-devel
= No redundant BuildRequires is described
= Summary and description is okay
= Documentation Encodings are fixed (according to
  my suggestion)
= Needed documentation
  - AUTHORS
  - COPYING
  - ChangeLog
  - README
  - TODO
  --- all included (in main package)
= Mock build log says that fedora specific compilation
  flags are correctly passed
  (checked by grep -v FORTIFY MOCK-krename.log )
= No static libraries nor .la files
= There is no libraries duplicate of system libraries
= /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpath-worker `rpm -ql krename`
  does not complain
= No conf file
= Desktop description is okay
  desktop-file-varidate does not report any error
= desktop-file-install correctly used
= Macros correctly used
= No mixed use of %{buildroot} <-> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
= %makeinstall not used
= Locale files are handled by %find_lang
= Timestamps are correctly kept for
  - xml/html
  - gettext mo files
  - png file
  (checked by `rpm -qilvv --changelog --scripts krename)
= Parallel build okay
= For scriplets
-> According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
   = No shared libraries, ldconfig not needed
   = No services
   = No GConf
   = No Texinfo
   = No Scrollkeeper
   = mime type is not needed nor described in desktop file (desktop
     update is not needed, proper)
   = mimetype xml is not included
   = files are installed under %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
     -> GTK+ icon cache updating is needed --- correctly handled!!
   = No fonts
= No conditional dependencies
= Mockbuild is okay, this means that non-root users' rebuild
  should work
= No content which cannot be accepted in FE is not included
= Unowned directory
  - /usr -> filesystem
  - /usr/bin -> filesystem
  - /usr/share -> filesystem
  - /usr/share/applications -> filesystem
  - /usr/share/apps -> kdelibs
  - /usr/share/doc -> filesystem
  - /usr/share/doc/HTML -> kdelibs
  - /usr/share/doc/HTML/en -> kdelibs
  - /usr/share/icons -> redhat-artwork
  - /usr/share/icons/hicolor -> hicolor-icon-theme
  - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/??x?? -> hicolor-icon-theme
  - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/??x??/apps -> hicolor-icon-theme
  = all okay
 = Owned directory
  - /usr/share/apps/konqueror
  - /usr/share/apps/krename
  - /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/krename
  - /usr/share/icons/lcolor
  = all are not owned by other packages needed by this package
  ( as for /usr/share/apps/konqueror, this is owned by
    kdebase, however, this package can be used for NON-KDE user
    so owning this directory is okay and recommended)
= This is no web app and /var/www is not used

Then from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
= rpmlint for source is silent
= rpmlint for binary rpm is silent
= rpmlint for installed rpm is silent
= Naming is okay (described above)
= Consistency for package guideline is checked above
= License is okay (described above)
= License documentation included (described above)
= Actually I don't know the deferrence between
  American/British/Other English in detail......
= I can read this spec file with ease
= Downloading all sources (one) from described URLs
  succeeded
= md5sum values are same
= mockbuild is okay for FC-devel i386
= BuildRequires is okay (described above)
= locale handling okay (described above)
= ldconfig not needed (described above)
= relocable description is not used
= Directory ownership is okay (described above)
= permission is okay
  - checked by rpmlint and
    rpm -qilvv krename
= %clean section handled properly
= macro usage is okay (described above)
= code/content issue is no problem (described above)
= No large documentation is included in source tarball
  and -doc subpackage is not needed
= -devel subpackage is not needed
= .la files/static archives are not included (described
  above)
= desktop file is correctly installed (described above)
= directory ownership is handled correctly (described above)

Well, other thing I have noticed
= mock build log is okay
= file `rpm -ql krename` is no problem
= rpm -qilvv --changelog --scripts krename is okay
= ( for f in `rpm -ql krename` ; do if file $f | grep -q
   text ; then echo $f ; done ) | xargs less is okay
= It seems that this app works and no segv happened for now
= ( for f in `rpm -ql krename` ; do if file $f | grep -q
   image l then echo $f ; done ) | xargs display is okay
= w3m /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/krename/index.html is okay

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.