Bug 227103
Summary: | Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matt Wringe <mwringe> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | nsantos, tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | nsantos:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.2.fc7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-06-22 14:08:20 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: |
Description
Rafael H. Schloming
2007-02-02 17:52:52 UTC
Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm I can't build this yet due to jline not being finished. Link to updated SRPM above is broken... Here's a partial review based on the specfile: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock Sorry for the broken URL, it's there now: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm I'm getting the following rpmlint warning, other than that everything is fine: $rpmlint plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-interactivity mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 167) I'll mark "approved" as soon as that's fixed. I fixed the mixed spaces and tabs. http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm APPROVED Assigning to owner. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-interactivity Short Description: Plexus Interactivity Handler Component Owners: mwringe Branches: devel Forgot to close this bug from a while ago. This package is already in Fedora 7 |