Bug 221039
Summary: | Review Request: aria2 - High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michał Bentkowski <mr.ecik> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Julian Sikorski <belegdol> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | anthonybryan, athmanem, karlikt |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | gwync:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-01-02 20:58:48 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 |
Description
Michał Bentkowski
2006-12-30 23:35:49 UTC
This is not an official review, I'm looking for a sponsor. * rmplint returns W: aria2 summary-ended-with-dot High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading. * specfile is properly named * source files match upstream * BuildRequires listed well (mock builds successfully on FC6 i386) * latest version is being packaged * license field matches the actual license (included in %doc) * no duplicates in %files * spec file handles locales properly "download accellerators" with "segmented downloading of one file with multiple connections from one URL" are evil. (In reply to comment #2) > "download accellerators" with "segmented downloading of one file with multiple > connections from one URL" are evil. Nevertheless, they can be used by a lot of people and also metalink feature is quite nice :) I am not sponsored, it is prereview. -Rpmlint: (S)RPM: "W: aria2 summary-ended-with-dot High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading." Summary is: "Summary: High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading." It should be: "Summary: High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading" -The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. -The spec file name is in the format %{name}.spec -I think that the package meets the Packaging Guidelines. -License GPL - ok -In spec the actual license is written -The text of the license is included in %doc -The spec file is written in American English. -The spec file for the package is legible. -md5sum source in srpm and from url is the same -SRPM succesfully compiles with mock (Fc6, arch i386) -All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. There are not any packages from ExceptionList -The spec file handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. There are not used %{_datadir}/locale/* -RPM package have not shared library files -The package is not designed to be relocatable. -The package own all directories that it creates. -There are not any duplicate files in %files listing. -Permissions on files are set properly. -Package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). -The package consistently uses macros -The package contains code, or permissable content. -There are not large documentation files -Files in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. -There are not header files or static libraries. -There are not pkgconfig(.pc) files. -There are not any library files with a suffix -There are not a devel package -There are not any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. -It is not a GUI application -Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. (In reply to comment #4) > Summary is: > "Summary: High speed download utility with resuming and segmented > downloading." > It should be: > "Summary: High speed download utility with resuming and segmented > downloading" > Fixed. Spec URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/aria/aria2.spec SRPM URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/aria/aria2-0.9.0-2.src.rpm - MUST: rpmlint is silent - MUST: Package is named well - MUST: Spec file name matches the package name - MUST: Package meets packaging guidelines - MUST: Pachage is licensed with GPL - MUST: License field matches actual license - MUST: COPYING file is included in %doc - MUST: Spec is written in English, most probably American (I am not that familiar with the differences to be 100% sure) - MUST: I can understand the spec file - MUST: MD5 sums match - MUST: Package build in mock (fc6/i386) - MUST: I can't check other architectures - MUST: All deps are listed in BR - MUST: %find_lang is used - MUST: Package does not contain shared libs - MUST: Package is not relocatable - MUST: Directory ownership is ok - MUST: There are no duplicates in %files - MUST: Permissions are OK - MUST: Clean section is present - MUST: Macros are used consistently - MUST: Package contains code - MUST: There is no large documentation - MUST: %doc is not required at runtime - MUST: There is no headers nor static libs - MUST: No pkgconfig files - MUST: There is no shared libs - MUST: There is no -devel subpackage - MUST: There is no libtool archives - MUST: Not a GUI app - MUST: Pachage does not own dirs owned by other packages SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: License is included - SHOULD: There are not translantions - SHOULD: Package builds in mock (fc6/i386) - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - SHOULD: Package works (smoke tested on fc6/i386) - SHOULD: Scriptlets are not used - SHOULD: There is no devel subpackage - SHOULD: There are no pkgconfig files APPROVED Thanks for review! Package built successfully for every branch I requested. Closing. *** Bug 201808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: aria2 New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: athmane Git done (by process-git-requests). |