[Bug 441072] Review Request: cwiid - Library and tools for comunicating with a wiimote

[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: cwiid - Library and tools for comunicating with a wiimote


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441072





------- Additional Comments From josh.kayse at gtri.gatech.edu  2008-04-08 19:40 EST -------
Ok, I built the packages by adding 
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info to the python2 %files
section (I do not know if this is the correct thing to do or not, I don't know
what that file is used for)

For testing purposes I took care of the easy things for rpmlint (description too
long and summary ending in . and no changelog) which produced the following
output on the built packages:

cwiid.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cwiid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cwiid-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libcwiid.a
cwiid-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/cwiid.h
cwiid-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cwiid-python2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/cwiid.so 0775
cwiid-wmgui.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized wiimote connectio test application
cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/buttons
cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/gamepad
cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/neverball
cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/nunchuk_acc_ptr
cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/ir_ptr
cwiid-wminput.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/cwiid/wminput/acc_ptr

Remaining packaging guidelines:
MUST:
+ rpmlint output
  see above
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
- package should satisfy packaging guidelines
  not rpmlint clean
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches actual package license
- includes LICENSE file in %doc
  does not include LICENSE file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
- package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  Does not build with sources provided.  Builds on x86_64 once initial
recommendations are met
+ ExcludeArch bugs filed
- BuildRequires list all build dependencies
  needs python-devel >= 2.4
? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
+ large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
+ header files should be in -devel
+ static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
+ packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
+ translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
+ builds in mock
+ builds on i386 and x86_64
? review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
+ pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

Take care of those things and I'll do another pre-review.

-- 
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.