[Bug 523799] Review Request: ascii - nteractive ascii name and synonym chart

[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=523799


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

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




--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de>  2009-10-01 16:07:59 EDT ---
Here's my review of this small package. It's pretty clean and I couldn't find
any major issues to fix. However, I'm not sure if ascii is a valid package
name. As far as I understand the naming rules and comments from other reviews,
generic terms should not be used as package names. What do you think? 


- You can simplify the make statement to
  make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}"


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/ascii-*
ascii.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary ascii
ascii.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary ascii
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

If ascii is a proper package name, these warnings can be ignored.


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

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
    - I'm not sure if ascii is a valid package name because generic terms
      should be avoided

[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.

[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - source file header refers to file COPYING that contains the GPLv2 license
text

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

[+] MUST: file that contains the text of the license(s) for the package must be
included in %doc.
    - COPYING 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.
    $ sha1sum ascii-3.8.tar.gz*
    c7a513cd52c0fec64491566b5db18fa070639ca4  ascii-3.8.tar.gz
    c7a513cd52c0fec64491566b5db18fa070639ca4  ascii-3.8.tar.gz.1


[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    koji scratch build:    
    https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722862

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ...

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
    - no explicit BRs necessary

[.] 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.
    - no shared libs

[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
    - 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 docs

[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.

[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
    - no header files

[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
    - no static libs

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

[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
    - no shared libs

[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
    - no devel package

[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
    - no .la files

[.] 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: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
    - builds in koji

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. 

[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
    - no scriptlets

[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
    - no subpackages

[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
    - no .pc files

-- 
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.