[Bug 544384] Review Request: report - Incident reporting library

[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=544384





--- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz>  2009-12-17 05:28:07 EDT ---
formal review is here, see the notes below:

OK source files match upstream:
     70ab9e22d9f21e03c0e43357072ecea8ed55ddab  report-0.4.tar.gz
OK* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text not included
upstream.
OK latest version is being packaged.
BAD BuildRequires are proper.
N/A compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
N/A debuginfo package looks complete.
OK* rpmlint is silent.
BAD final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.

- I accept the reasoning for the package name from comment #3, but it can be
useful for a straightforward upgrade path
    (after the python bindings are created) to add now Provide: python-report =
%{version}-%{release} into the main package
- the usual form of spec file contains the definition of subpackages directly
after the main package and before the %prep section,
    the %files sections for the sub-packages are placed after the main %files
section
- you should omit the BuildArch and BuildRequires in the sub-packages, they are
inherited from the main package
- you should use Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in the sub-packages
instead of just the hardcoded version
- please include the license text in the upstream source archive and then as
%doc in the package
- you can use fedorahosted facility to publish the source archive
- rpmlint complains a bit
report.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4-1 ['0.4-2.fc13', '0.4-2']
    => looks as an omission
report-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation
report-plugin-bugzilla.noarch: W: no-documentation
    => can be ignored

Thanks goes to Michael for his almost complete review making my work much
easier.

-- 
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.