[Bug 525927] Review Request: incollector - Information collector for various kinds of information

[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=525927





--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee>  2009-12-01 09:58:15 EDT ---
Thomas, I already got the spec and srpm from pkgdb / koji, no need to duplicate
those here.

Fedora review incollector-1.2-1.fc13.src.rpm 2009-12-01

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint says:
incollector.i686: E: no-binary
incollector.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

All these rpmlint warnings/errors are expected for mono packages and can be
ignored.

+ rpmlint output
+ package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ specfile name matches base package name
+ package meets Packaging Guidelines
+ The stated license (GPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license
! The license doesn't match actual package license

Every source file contains the following lines:
 *  Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Marcin Krystian Krzywonos
 *  License: GNU/GPL version 2

I think this means that the license tag should read 'GPLv2'

+ The package contains the license file (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
6701ac13da29119cd6719be3edcf30aa  incollector-1.2.tar.gz
6701ac13da29119cd6719be3edcf30aa  Download/incollector-1.2.tar.gz
+ Package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
+ Spec file handles locales properly
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
    %postun
+ Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries
+ Does not use Prefix: /usr
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Proper permissions and %files has %defattr
+ %clean contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ Consistent use of macros
+ Package must contain code or permissible content
+ Package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
+ Proper .desktop file handling
+ Package doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ all filename are valid UTF-8


! The following pushd/popd commands in the spec file without anything in
between seem useless and should be removed:
  pushd po
  popd

! You have the following sed command to fix lib64 dir:
  sed -i 's|/usr/lib|%{_libdir}|' %{name}

I think a proper way to do that is fix script.in instead (that's something you
could also send upstream):
-exec @MONO@ @prefix@/lib/incollector/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS "$@"
+exec @MONO@ @pkglibdir@/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS "$@"

Attaching the patch to the bug report in a separate file too.

! Consider removing %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.ico at the end of %install. I
very much doubt anything uses .ico files in Fedora when there's a matching .png
file in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/.

-- 
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.