[Bug 454250] Review Request: tangoGPS - tangoGPS is a lightweight and fast mapping application

[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=454250





--- Comment #12 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray at gmail.com>  2008-09-01 00:19:30 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=315455)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=315455)
tangogps.desktop fix

MUST Items: 

xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM
    + [rishi at freebook x86_64]$ rpmlint tangogps-0.9.3-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm 
      tangogps.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized tangoGPS is a lightweight and
fast mapping application
      tangogps.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/tangogps.desktop
      1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
      [rishi at freebook x86_64]$ 
    + rpmlint is unclean on SRPM
      [rishi at freebook SRPMS]$ rpmlint tangogps-0.9.3-2.fc9.src.rpm 
      tangogps.src: W: summary-not-capitalized tangoGPS is a lightweight and
fast mapping application
      1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
      [rishi at freebook SRPMS]$ 

OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + To work around the rpmlint warnings you could consider borrowing the
      summary used by Debian (http://packages.debian.org/lenny/tangogps):
      "GTK+ mapping and GPS application"
    + Even though Fedora does not use the Group tag, please consider a more
      suitable value for the sake of perfection.
    + To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - license field meets actual license
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch not needed

OK - build dependencies correctly listed
    + The 'BuildRequires: glib2-devel' is redundant since
      'BuildRequires: gtk2-devel' will drag it in as well.

OK - locales handled properly
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives

xx - %{name}.desktop file is invalid and not properly installed
    + The .desktop file does not meet the specification. You can use
      desktop-file-validate to have a look at the problems. Please consider the
      attached patch as a fix for these issues.
    + If the package installs a .desktop file, then desktop-file-install must
      be run. See
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files Since
      upstream does not provide a vendor ID, you should use "fedora" as the
      value.

OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures

xx - package will not function as expected
    + Looking at the GUI, it seems that a GPS daemon is necessary during
      runtime. Please add 'Requires: gpsd' to take care of this.

OK - scriptlets are not needed
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies

-- 
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.