Bug 190502

Not a review - I've never reviewed a package that builds with mono before, so I
want to watch some be reviewed first.

But one thing I noticed :

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono

It says

All mono packages need to be in /usr/lib rather than whereever %{_libdir}
happens to point to. There is a simple method to ensure this happens. At the
start of the spec file have the line

%define _libdir /usr/lib

-=-
Is that applicable to this package?

Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker-1.2.1-2.src.rpm

* Sat May  6 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 1.2.1-2
- Use %%{prefix}/lib.
- Drop unnecessary Requires.

When first started, it gives a fatal looking error, "Failed to load application
data! Starting with empty lists.
See console output for more informations."

Creation of a sport type made it go away on the next startup, however. I assume
this happens with SportsTracker itself.

* debuginfo package is empty, should be disabled, like how I mention in the new
hint from the mono packaging tips: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono

* README.txt has potentially useful information, though the install information
is not relevant. Consider including, and possibly the other docs.

- rpmlint checks return:
E: sportstracker hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

The usual hack to get it to install to /usr/lib on x86_64. Another way of doing
it is to redefine %_libdir but I don't think there's a preference.

E: sportstracker no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.

Yet it installs to %_libdir.

E: sportstracker only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

mono stuff is in /usr/lib. Ignore.

- naming guidelines: capitalization. Authors call it SportsTracker. If they
insist on the capitalization it should be SportsTracker.

- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- locales handled with %find_lang
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- consider submitting .desktop file to SportsTracker

Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker-1.2.1-3.src.rpm

* Sun May 28 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 1.2.1-3
- Disable debuginfo.
- Use libdir macro.
- Add README.txt

Author doesn't care about capitilation on name, so this isn't going to be
changed.  Regardless, this will be changing upstream in the near future, once I
finish modifing it to use a more traditional build set-up.

You have not Changes Source versions' release. Your Inital version was 1.2.1-1.
Then you made Chnages in SPEC so it became 1.2.1-2 but then you added README
that mean Changed Source tarball. but still source verison is same 1.2.1 you
should increase it to 1.2.2

The README was already included in the tarball, there is not reason to increase
version.  Ignoring comment #5, which makes no sense.

Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker-2.0.0-1.src.rpm

* Sun Jun  4 2006 Brian Pepple <bdpepple> - 2.0.0-1
- Update to 2.0.0.
- Add requires on mono-core.

Closing until Mono guidelines are finalized.  Once they are, I'll submit again.