[Bug 426922] Review Request: gpar2 - GUI for verifying and repairing PAR and PAR2 recovery sets

Sat Dec 29 13:27:04 UTC 2007

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: gpar2 - GUI for verifying and repairing PAR and PAR2 recovery sets

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426922

------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2007-12-29 08:27 EST -------
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on:x86_64
 [!] Rpmlint output:
        Source RPM: empty
        rpmlint of gpar2:
                gpar2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-1 0.3-2.fc9
--> that's an easy one, you forgot to bump the release when doing copy/paste in
the changelog. Just fix it before uploading to cvs.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:GPLv2+
 [x] 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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: 0ae966d4f29ced3d076a60e99722bee08a53c570 gpar2-0.3.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Please also see
my comment number 2 below
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [!] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===
1.  according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28ScriptletSnippets%29#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef
the presence of a mimetype entry in the desktop file imposes the need for
 %post
 update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
 %postun
 update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
2. According to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755,
the desktop file uses a value for Categories which no longer corresponds to our
current specifications (it should not contain Application any more). Looking at
http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html I'd say Utility would
fit the bill here.
3. Don't forget to fix the changelog entry :)

=== Comments ===
1. I admit being puzzled by the fact that the French gpar2.mo is built, despite
gettext not being present as a BR:
checking whether NLS is requested... yes
checking for msgfmt... no
checking for gmsgfmt... no:
checking for xgettext... no
checking for msgmerge... no
 And yet gpar2.mo is correctly built and included, so it's OK.
2. Just a suggestion: you could take the French description from the desktop
file and use it as %description[fr] in the spec.

Please fix the issues above mentioned and I will approve the package.

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.