[Bug 526122] Review Request: vim-latex - Tools to view, edit and compile LaTeX documents in Vim

[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=526122


Thomas Spura <spurath at students.uni-mainz.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura <spurath at students.uni-mainz.de>  2009-10-08 15:22:04 EDT ---
This is my first official review and I run into some questions, but at least a
good start…

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: 
       [] devel/i386 
       [] devel/x86_64
       [] F11/i386 
       [x] F11/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/vim-latex-1.5-2.20090901.r1069.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/vim-latex-doc-1.5-2.20090901.r1069.fc11.noarch.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/vim-latex-1.5-2.20090901.r1069.fc11.noarch.rpm 
vim-latex.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Documentation is in a extra package, so this is ok.

 [!] Buildroot is correct
     (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: Vim
 [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: 3f0e34465b577aac6448c9c95da71abf
     Build source:    3f0e34465b577aac6448c9c95da71abf
 [-] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [!] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [!] Latest version is packaged.
 [!] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [x] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.

Issues/Summary:
* rpmlint would be quiet, if the licence would be %doc.
* Buildroot is not the standard one, so please use the one mentioned above or
delete it completely, because it's not needed anymore.
______
Suggestions:
* there is a newer version, but that can be done later as an update.
* As mentioned in comment #1 no licence file is supported, so please query
upstream to include one in the future.
______
my problems: ;)
* are the permissions correctly set with 'cp -a'? cp -a preserves all
timestamps and permissions if they are correctly set in the sources. In this
case, they are. But does this count as 'properly set'?

-- 
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.