Bug 177946

Compiled cleanly & functions on FC5-devel

Missing: .desktop file (Required by PackageReviewGuidelines) or explanation why
Missing: (copied from upstream or in package included) licence file, however
there is a copyright mentioned in the manpage, not sure if this is 'good
enough', will trust packager's judgement on this
 
Review list MUST items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- rpmlint has no output / complaints
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (BSD-ish?) is fedora extra's compatible
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No need for ldconfig
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed

Review list SHOULD items:
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires

rpmlint has no complaints at all (no output) & mock build cleanly (fc-devel-i386)

Woops mock did end up complaining there are missing build requires:
libXt-devel
xorg-x11-proto-devel

Please add those to BR

Good catches. The source doesn't include any license text, and the license is
derived from the documentation and source code, so there will not be any text in
%doc.

-2 has all the above issues resolved:

SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xkeycaps-2.46-2.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xkeycaps.spec

Thanks v2 looks good, formal reviewlist:

Review list MUST items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- rpmlint has no output / complaints
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (BSD-ish?) is fedora extra's compatible, included in 'man xkeycaps'
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No need for ldconfig
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed
- Includes desktop file, BR desktop-file-utils, installs using
desktop-file-install w/ proper vendor/category

Review list SHOULD items:
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires

rpmlint has no complaints at all (no output)

However mock failed again; It has a missing libXext-devel BR.

Please if you have a faster machine then my notebook try mockbuilds your self
too to make sure your including all BR's properly? :-)

After adding that BR, rpmbuild -bs and a new mock build everything is peachy
perfect again. 

FE-APPROVED but based on the assumption you will add that BR before commiting to
CVS.

Ps please assign bug to me according to process docs, i haven't been processed
for fedorabugs yet so i can't yet :-)

This is built... but you forgot to set the bug to FE-ACCEPT, so please close
this when you do. :)

Woops my bad, set correct blocker bug now and closing to 'NEXTRELEASE"