[Bug 519071] Review Request: wiipresent - Giving presentations (or control applications) with your Wiimote

[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=519071





--- Comment #7 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org>  2009-08-31 19:02:02 EDT ---
No Problem, I was able now to have another look on your package. :)

$ rpmlint wiipresent.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm
wiipresent-debuginfo-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm
wiipresent.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.5.2-2
['0.7.5.2-3.fc11', '0.7.5.2-3']

NOTE: You forgot to update your %changelog.


MUSTs
-----

OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines
OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec
OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines
OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines
OK: license file is included in %doc
OK: specfile is written in AE
OK: specfile is legible
OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source,
    md5sum fits
OK: package compiles successfully
OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
N/A: package handles locales properly
     there are no locales installed with this package
N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun
     there is no binary installed with this package
OK: package is not designed to be relocatable
OK: package owns directorys it creates
OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK: macros are consistently used
OK: package contains code
N/A: subpackage for large documentation files
     there are no large documentation files
OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc
N/A: header files are in a -devel package
     there are no header files
N/A: static libraries are in a -static package
     there are no static libs
N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc)
     there is no pkgconfig file
N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix
     there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library
N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package
     there is no devel package
N/A: any libtool archives are removed
     there are no libtool archives
OK: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application
OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages
OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install
N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8
     not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames


SHOULD
------
N/A: non-English translations for description and summary
     there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does
not
     provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this
     package.
OK: package builds in mock
OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures
N/A: program runs
     I did not test myself if the program works as it should
N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package
     there are no subpackages
N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package
     there is no pkgconfig file
N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required


BLOCKERS:
 - As written above, you forgot to update your %changelog, i'd like to see this
   added before approving

Just as hints:
 - Indenting the arguments for desktop-file-install would make
   the spec i bit more legible imho. It's on your's if you like to do so.
 - I don't see why you are using a wildcard for the manpage, I think
   writing 'wiipresent.1.gz' would do the job also. If there is no specific
   reason for that I would recommend you to fix that with your next release.

-- 
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.