[Bug 523540] Review Request: opentracker - Bit Torrent Tracker

[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=523540





--- Comment #11 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org>  2009-10-17 16:41:22 EDT ---
First of all, thanks very much to the other guys who also have had a look on
this package. I'm very sorry for the delayed feedback from my site.

Here's the formal review now.


$ rpmlint opentracker.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint opentracker-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint opentracker-debuginfo-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.x86_64.rpm
opentracker-ipv4-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.x86_64.rpm
opentracker-ipv6-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.x86_64.rpm
opentracker-ipv4.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv4
opentracker-ipv4.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv4
opentracker-ipv4.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/opentracker-ipv4
opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv6
opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv6
opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/opentracker-ipv6
$prog
opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/opentracker-ipv6
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

As Matt already wrote before, the statically-linked-binary error can be
ignored.
I think those warnings are okay too so far.

MUSTs
-----

OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines
OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec
OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines
OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines
OK: license file is included in %doc
 Note: there is no separate license file, but a license hint is contained in
 the README, which actually is included in %doc.
OK: specfile is written in AE
OK: specfile is legible
OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source,
    Yes, it is. It is not possible to get a fitting md5sum, so I have had a
look
    with meld on an own checkout and the unpacked tarball from the package.
There
    wasn't any diff.
OK: package compiles successfully
OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
N/A: package handles locales properly
     there are no locales installed with this package
N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun
     there is no shared library linked against the installed binary
OK: package is not designed to be relocatable
OK: package owns directorys it creates
OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK: macros are consistently used
OK: package contains code
N/A: subpackage for large documentation files
     there are no large documentation files
OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc
N/A: header files are in a -devel package
     there are no header files installed with this package
N/A: static libraries are in a -static package
     there are no static libs installed with this package
N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc)
     there is no pkgconfig file
N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix
     there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library
N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package
     there is no devel package
N/A: any libtool archives are removed
     there are no libtool archives
N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application
     this is no GUI application
OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages
OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install
N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8
     not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames


SHOULD
------
N/A: non-English translations for description and summary
     a localization is not neccessary for this package
OK: package builds in mock
NOT OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures
     does not build for ppc64
OK: program runs
N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package
     there are no subpackages
N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package
     there is no pkgconfig file
N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

Building the package in koji fails for ppc64 architecture.
You can have a look at the concerning build.log here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1751807
I think this is no problem for the packaging procedure at all since this is a
SHOULD, but you maybe want to contact upstream regarding this issue.

The description is not okay yet. According to http://www.bittorrent.com/ the
spelling is "BitTorrent", which is not correct in your description.
Also "wlan" is a term which is good known in Germany and maybe some other
countrys, but in general I think "Wi-Fi" would be a better term to fit world
wide. I would also consider "Wireless LAN" as okay.

-- 
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.