Bug 214312 (xdms)

Summary: Review Request: xdms - Extracts Amiga DMS archives
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ian Chapman <packages>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Christopher Stone <chris.stone>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-11-28 13:51:31 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    
Attachments:
Description Flags
spec fixes none

Description Ian Chapman 2006-11-07 00:15:37 UTC
Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/xdms.spec
SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/xdms-1.3.2-2.src.rpm
Description: 

Extracts Amiga DMS (Disk Masher) archives which are compressed Amiga disk
images. Xdms is particularly useful with Amiga emulators.

Comment 1 Michael Schwendt 2006-11-12 19:17:41 UTC
Created attachment 141003 [details]
spec fixes

* fix CFLAGS, don't hack VERSION!
* use install option -p to preserve time-stamps of possibly _old_ files
* don't use %{?dist} in %changelog, since it would alter history
* don't package file COPYING, since it just points to xdms.txt
* omit the man-pages .gz extension, prefer a wildcard

Comment 2 Ian Chapman 2006-11-18 23:19:31 UTC
Latest version.

Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/xdms.spec
SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/xdms-1.3.2-3.src.rpm

Comment 3 Christopher Stone 2006-11-23 18:02:09 UTC
==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ====
O rpmlint output:
  E: xdms configure-without-libdir-spec

  This is because of a non-standard configure script.  You should place a
comment in the specfile indicating why you cannot set libdir.
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed as "Public Domain"
  This is not listed in the open source compatible licenses, but I assume it's
valid for Fedora since rpmlint recognizes it.
- License matches actual license, located in source files
- no license in %doc because it just says "Public Domain" in the source files
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- source match upstream
  f687a5beba88964ef0afd478efe99849  xdms-1.3.2.tar.bz2
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC6 x86_64
- all dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package has proper %clean section
O macro usage is consistent
  Why not use %{opt_flags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS since you use %{buildroot}?
- package contains code
- no large documentation
- %doc does not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- package does not require a devel subpackage
- no .la files
- package is not a GUI app
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages


** APPROVED **

==== SHOULD ====
- Add comment above configure explaining why you cannot set libdir
- Use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS since you use %{buildroot} instead
of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Not really necessary, but more consistent with your usage.


Comment 4 Ian Chapman 2006-11-28 13:51:31 UTC
Changes applied. Imported and built. Thanks for the review.