[Bug 477199] Review Request: PolicyKit-kde - PolicyKit integration for the KDE desktop

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477199


Kevin Kofler <kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler <kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org>  2008-12-23 19:18:07 EDT ---
MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output OK (see comment #4)
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ spec file name matches base package name
+ Packaging Guidelines:
  ! License is listed as GPLv2+, should list "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" because the
client library is LGPLv2+, otherwise OK
  + No known patent problems
  + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
  + Complies with the FHS
  + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, BuildRequires, Summary, Description
  + no non-UTF-8 characters
  + the only relevant documentation is COPYING, included as %doc
  + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake_kde4 macro)
  + debuginfo package is valid
  + no static libraries nor .la files
  + no duplicated system libraries
  + no rpaths
  + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
  + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
  + no .desktop files needed: the only executable is polkit-kde-authorization
and its functionality is available through systemsettings
  + ... and thus no desktop-file-install needed either
  + no timestamp-clobbering file commands
  + _smp_mflags used
  + scriptlets are valid
  + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
  + no conflicts
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
+ COPYING packaged as %doc
+ source compares identical to export of revision 898968 from upstream SVN
+ builds on at least one arch (F9 i386 mock)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ no missing BuildRequires (builds in mock)
+ no translations, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply
+ ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions correct, defattr used correctly
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible
+ no non-code content
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ no %doc files required at runtime
+ no header files which would need to be in the -devel subpackage
+ no static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ devel symlinks correctly in the -devel subpackage
+ plugin (KCM) in %{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/ is correctly NOT in a -devel subpackage
+ -devel package has "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}"
+ no .la files
+ no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
+ package builds in mock (F9 i386)
+ passes basic functionality test (polkit-kde-authorization resp. the KCM look
OK, service not tested yet)
+ scriptlets are sane
+ no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel
should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is
irrelevant
+ no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies

Questions (non-blockers):
* Should polkit-kde-authorization appear in the menu as a standalone app or is
it enough to have it in systemsettings? (IMHO the latter, but there _is_ a
standalone executable provided by upstream.)
* Do we really want to ship a -devel package right now when there are no
installed headers yet? (Not that it will matter in the long term as a public
API is planned.)

This package is APPROVED.
Please clarify the License tag from "GPLv2+" to "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" before,
during or after import.

-- 
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.