[Bug 457213] Review Request: html2text - HTML-to-text converter

[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: html2text - HTML-to-text converter


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457213





------- Additional Comments From jeffperry_fedora at sourcesink.com  2008-07-30 20:34 EST -------
NEEDSWORK - rpm lint on binary rpms shows...
  rpmlint html2text-*.rpm
  html2text.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/html2text-1.3.2a/README
  html2text.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
  html2text-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
  2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

OK  - local mock build with Fedora 10 target (yes it's redundant - but it was
      already running when I decided to do my koji build - I figured why not 
      let it go as a double check on x86_64)

OK - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires (koji/mock) would
     have failed so this is OK.

OK?? - The spec file MUST handle locales properly
   The spec file makes no use of the find_lang. I'm not sure
   is this is an issue since it does not look like this app supplies
   localization files for any language

OK - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library file ...
     This package produces NO shared libs

OK - If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, 
     NOT stated in review and no mention of /usr in spec file

OK - A package must own all directories that it creates

OK - A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

OK - Permissions on files must be set properly (rpmls shows appropriate perms)

OK - Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
 or $BUILD_ROOT

OK - Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
[wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros 
      Uses both styles but uses one in the general rpm spec directive context
     and shell style ex: $BUILD_ROOT in build/install contexts - usage
     is consistent in each context.

OK - The package must contain code, or permissable content. 

OK - Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
     No large doc files in this case

OK -  If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
    Only doc text files are listed as %doc for this package

OK - Header files must be in a -devel package.
   No header files included in binary rpm

OK - Static libraries must be in a -static package
   No libraries of any kind in this package

OK - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
   None included

OK - If a package contains library files with a suffix....
   None included

OK - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package...
   No devel package

OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives...
   No libs produced at all

OK - Packages containing GUI applications ...
   Not a gui app

OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
   Watched install then inspected directories and files ...
   Also rpmlint will usually complain if this is not the case?---I believe?

OK - At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} 
   uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT style

OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

That's all for the MUSTS.



-- 
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.