Spec Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/synce-software-manager.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/synce-software-manager-0.9.0-1.src.rpm Description: Software manager for use with synce
*** Bug 166559 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Okay I'm willing to pick up the synce* submissions from late August to do the package guidelines review. But I don't have the winCE based hardware to test functionality against. Is there a way to fake a device with synce or anything like that? I can get started on reviewing synce-software-manager first and then move on to the other ones from there. -jef
Thanks :) Hm, to my knowledge there is no non-tivial way to fake a winCE device. Does anybody know more about this?
Okay I've gone over the review. 2 blockers 1) Need to add BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel I fixed this to do my review and located here: http://jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/synce-software-manager/synce-software-manager-0.9.0-2.src.rpm http://jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/synce-software-manager/synce-software-manager.spec 2) Need to add a desktop file and associated scriptlet and Requires I haven't fixed this, You'll need to add a .desktop as a SOURCE1 and then use the instructions in http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines for Desktop Files. Please add the desktop file and respin the srpm so I can do a final review of the changes. Full review: - GOOD: builds in mock on an fc4 host system. - GOOD: rpmlint returns clean. - GOOD: The package is named according to the PackageNamingGuidelines. - GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} - GOOD: package meets the PackagingGuidelines. - GOOD: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license (MIT) - GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - GOOD: The source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, COPYING and is included in %doc. - GOOD: The spec file is written American English. - GOOD: The spec file for the package is be legible. - GOOD: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source. - Fixed: The package must successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on fc4 i386 and fc-devel i386. Needed to add BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel - GOOD: package does not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the exceptions section of PackagingGuidelines. - Fixed: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. Need to add BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel - GOOD: Uses the %find_lang macro. - GOOD: No shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - GOOD: package owns all directories that it creates. - GOOD: package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly. - GOOD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - GOOD: package consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of PackagingGuidelines. - GOOD: package contains code, or permissable content. - GOOD: No large documentation files. - GOOD: %doc files do not affect the runtime of the application. - GOOD: No header files or static libraries. - GOOD: No files used by pkgconfig (.pc files). - GOOD: No library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) - BAD: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of PackagingGuidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
Here you go :) http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/synce-software-manager-0.9.0-3.src.rpm http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/synce-software-manager.spec
I'll help testing, I have a wince device. But I have little time at the moment, sorry.
Review for release 3: * RPM name is OK * Source synce-software-manager-0.9.0.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint of synce-software-manager looks OK * File list of synce-software-manager looks OK * Works fine I would APPROVE this version, I'm changing the blocker bug. Jef, if you disagree, feel free to set it back.
imported and build, THANKS you both for your time