[Bug 546301] Review Request: moblin-app-installer - Moblin Application Installer

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jan 2 23:35:38 UTC 2010


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=546301


Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |cwickert at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org>  2010-01-02 18:35:37 EDT ---

OK - MUST: $ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-12-x86_64/result/moblin-app-installer-*
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 (GPLv2
only)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2)
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
N/A - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 (git version)
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
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.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is 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 - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete


Issues:
- Missing docs: AUTHORS NEWS README TODO

- BR gtk2-devel is redundant

- no need to patch the desktop file, you can do this with desktop-file-install
--remove-key ... If you patch it, please use the upstream patch from
http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/moblin-app-installer/commit/?id=bc65c884d3a1ae37e69431417888126b2a3ea021

- applist.xml contains lots of packages that are not part of Fedora. At least
the closed source apps like AdobeReader or World of Go should IMO be removed.
Other packages need their names fixed (like kanagram, khangman and kiten which
are part of the kdeedu package).

- applist.xml should be packaged as separate package, see README

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list