[Bug 528290] Review Request: yapet - Curses based password encryption tool

[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=528290





--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org>  2009-10-11 09:44:58 EDT ---
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/yapet-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv3+
with OpenSSL exception clause
FIX - MUST: License field in spec file doesn't matches the actual license:
Nothing about OpenSSL
OK - MUST: License files included in %doc
OK - MUST: Spec is in American English
OK - MUST: Spec is legible
OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5
30ee2bf2d4658e667b8eea4a62704b76
OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - 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.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates (none)
OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: Compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: Functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.


Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete


Issues:
License tag should be "GPLv3+ with exceptions"

LICENSE missing from %doc. This is important since it includes the OpenSSL
exeption clause. We must not ship the package without it.

You are not using the conditionals correctly: The patch should always be
included in the srpm, no matter what distro or version. And you only want to
apply it on Fedora >= 11, because Fedora 10 still has gcc 4.3. Sou you would
use "%if 0%{?fedora} >= 11"

Why do you remove the launcher?


Notes:
The package includes a copy of gettext, but fortunately it builds against
system's libintl if installed. You might want to remove the intl folder and the
patch the Makefile if you want to be 100% sure. But this is optional.

-- 
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.