[Bug 509445] Review Request: sblim-cmpi-rpm - CIM access to rpm and other information about installed packages

[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=509445


Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de>  2009-08-07 05:33:41 EDT ---
Hello Praveen,

here is my review of your package. :)


rpmlint output:

sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: devel-dependency rpm-devel
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog .0.1-3 ['1.0.1-3.fc11',
'1.0.1-3']
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib/libcimrpm.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib/libcimrpm.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib/libcimrpmv4.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib/libcimrpmv4.so.0.0.0
sblim-cmpi-rpm-devel.i586: W: no-dependency-on
sblim-cmpi-rpm/sblim-cmpi-rpm-libs/libsblim-cmpi-rpm
sblim-cmpi-rpm-devel.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized devel files for
sblim-cmpi-rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.


- Add a changelog entry for *every* revision so that the revision history can
be reproduced (revision number is 3 now, so there must be 3 changelog entries,
newest first)

- It wasn't necessary to shorten the description. The lines were just longer
than 80 characters. Split long descriptions to several lines.


---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:

[+] OK
[#] OK, not applicable
[-] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
    - see rpmlint output 

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: license file added to %doc 
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
    - md5 hashes are different
    - please use the latest orignal tarball from upstream

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
    - no locales

[-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
    - add %post and %postun scriptlets
    - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

[#] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,...
    - package not relocatable

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
    - no large documentation

[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
    - run configure with --disable-static to disable build of static libraries
    - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries

[#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
    - no pkgconfig files

[+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
    - add Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to the -devel package

[-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
    - remove the .la files in the %install section and remove them from %files
devel

[#] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
    - no GUI

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    - builds in mock

[-] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
    - no scriptlets
    - add %post and %postun (see above)

-- 
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.