Bug 610073

Checked the spec and the srpm with rpmlint. No errors or warnings.

David Woodhouse is sponsoring me, removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockage.

I amn't a sponsor; this's just a casual review.

- The Version field should reflect the corresponding software version as specified on the project website. I can't find a version matching 20100629 at http://code.google.com/p/flyback/downloads/list.

- There's neither a separate license(COPYING) file nor a license header notice in the source files. The specified version, GPLv2, correctly matches the one specified at the project page http://code.google.com/p/flyback/; you should notify the upstream to include a license file and a license notice in the source file headers. This isn't a blocker, however.

- The Source0 URL expands to path pertaining to the packager personal space at fedorapeople; this can't be a valid permanent link to get the original software source from. You should specify a download link as provided by the upstream, usually at the software site.

- You can substitute the project name directly in the Source0 field instead of the macro %{name} just to facilitate tracking the URL for reviewers, but it's a matter of personal prefernce anyway.

- You should uncomment the BuildRequires filed, stating appropriate required python runtime development libraries(python 2 or python 3). See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires for details. You should also add desktop-file-utils in the BuildRequires field as explained at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage, since you've a desktop file in your package.

- Under %build section, the instructions section are intended to add a new wrapper shell script to a python script. You should instead create a patch containing this wrapper script and use %patch under %prep section to apply the patch.

- Under %install section, you should use the install command with appropriate command-line switches instead of mkdir and cp commands. Consult the install manual as well as http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling for available install options and examples.

- Under %install section, to install the desktop file use the command desktop-file-install instead of cp. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage for more usage scenarios of this command.

- Under %install and %files sections, you should make use of the predefined path macros instead of specifying explicit paths, for example %{_datarootdir} instead of /usr/share, %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin, and %{_desktopdir} instead of /usr/share/applications, ...etc. The command `rpm --showrc' can help you identify the paths predefined by macros. Check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Drafts/BuildingPackagesGuide#Case_Study:_leafpad for other useful examples.

- In the desktop file flyback.desktop, it's better to specify the icon with a short name, but the full path is also OK. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files for explanation.

- The desktop file contains a deprecated key, FilePattern, as described at http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-latest.html#deprecated-items. It should be removed.

(In reply to comment #3)

Wow, thank you very much Mohammed for the detailed review, I will soon start to work through your list. Please stand by. :)

If there's no clear source tarball for the software(as I haven't found one on the website), consider creating the tarball yourself. In this case, just state the tarball file name(with no URL) in the Source0 field, as illustrated at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL.

Hello!
I tried to retrieve the spec file but I cannot access it anymore. Is the review still going on? I'll be interested to help.

Mario

I believe the submitter indicated that they were completely leaving the project for whatever reason.  I know they had all content removed from their account.  I'll just close this ticket.