[Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows

[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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814





------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2007-03-15 05:18 EST -------
Okay here's my formal review. There are two blockers that need to be address.
A directory ownership issue and the desktop file install process.

Get these fixed and I can approve.

-jef

Full review:
+ Good  - BAD   ? Questionable   N/A Not Applicable

Items that need to be addressed
- A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 

Problems:
/usr/share/mime/packages/hugin.xml
/usr/share/mime/packages/ is owned by shared-mime-info, hugin should require
shared-mime-info

/usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-ptoptimizer-script.png
/usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/  is owned by openoffice.org-core
It's very difficult to say that hugin should require openoffice.org.core. This
directory ownership appears to be in error and thus I think its okay to make an
exception and have hugin NOT require openoffice.org.core just for the directory
ownership chain.

- includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the
desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop 


Items which pass review.
+ rpmlint hugin-0.6.1-4.fc7.i386.rpm
clean
+ The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
+ The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Note: there are multiple codebases in the package and the License tag has the
most reasonable license for the collection.
+ 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
must be included in %doc.
Note: Contains COPYING for the hugin codebase
Contains LICENCE_JHEAD for the public domain jhead codebase
Contains LICENCE_VIGRA for the MIT licensed vigra codebase

+ The spec file is written in American English-ese.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, 
md5sum
46bc3136d42acbabab837128ff471507  hugin-0.6.1.tar.bz2

+ The package builds on x86
+ BuildRequires look good, assuming the warning concerning wx-config is bogus..
as i believe it is.
+ The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
+ no shared libs
+ not designed to be relocatable 



+ No duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files look okay. 
+ %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ package consistently uses macros. 
+ The package contains code, or permissable content. 
+ no large docs
+ %doc files do not affect the runtime of the application. 
+ no Header files 
+ no static libraries in payload.
+ no pkgconfig(.pc) 
+ no library files 
+ no devel package 
+ no .la libtool archives
+ Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 


-- 
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.