[Bug 469548] Review Request: ap-utils - Configure and monitor Wireless Access Points

[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=469548


Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |leamas.alec at gmail.com




--- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com>  2008-11-21 05:17:29 EDT ---
Hi!

I promised to make yet another review...

Summary: OK besides some missing document files. A question mark on
all the compiler warnigs when building, though.


MUST stuff:
rpmlint must be run on every package...
  -  OK (No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.)

The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .
   - OK

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, 
   - OK

The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines .
   - OK.

The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...
   - OK

The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
   - OK (some files have GPLv+ notices, but GPLv2 is the common denominator).

The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc
   - OK

The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
   - OK

The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
   - OK (ebdb2a03302648c939ac965617de2889)

The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
   - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: 
     pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building."
     for constructs with  a short and a literal #define int.
     Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?)

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
   - OK (since mock is OK, see below)

The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
   - OK

Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files 
   - NA

If the package is designed to be relocatable...
   - NA

A package must own all directories that it creates
   - NOK. The %doc section lists  Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ
     but these are not present at all in the generated RPM.

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

Permissions on files must be set properly
   - OK

Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot} 
   - OK

Each package must consistently use macros...
   - OK

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

Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
   - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet).

If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present
   - OK 

Header files must be in a -devel package.
   - NA

Static libraries must be in a -static package.
   - NA

Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must...
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1
   - NA

If a package contains library files with a suffix...
   - NA

devel packages must require the base package using...
   - NA

Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
   - OK

Packages containing GUI applications...
   - NA (ncurses apps are not considered being graphical)

Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
   - OK 

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

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

SHOULD 

   - The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present.
   - Localized descriptions are not available what I can see.
   - Builds OK in mock, on a Fedora-9/x86_64 configuration
   - There are no scriptlets.
   - All apps works to the point of a help message or an initial
     ncurses screen.
   - There are no subpackages, pkgconfig  .pc file or file deps.

-- 
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.