Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/xdg-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/xdg-utils-1.0-0.1.beta1.src.rpm Description: The xdg-utils package is a set of simple scripts that provide basic desktop integration functions for any Free Desktop, such as Linux. They are intended to provide a set of defacto standards. This means that: * Third party software developers can rely on these xdg-utils for all of their simple integration needs. * Developers of desktop environments can make sure that their environments are well supported * Distribution vendors can provide custom versions of these utilities The following scripts are provided at this time: * xdg-menu Place a menu into the users menu structure * xdg-mime Gather mime information about a file * xdg-open Open a URL in the user's preferred application that handles the respective URL or file type * xdg-email Open the users preferred email client, potentially with subject and other info filled in * xdg-copy Copy one URI to another * xdg-su Run a command as a different (usually root) user * xdg-screensaver Enable, disable, or suspend the screensaver
Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/xdg-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/xdg-utils-1.0-0.3.20060721.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jul 24 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 1.0-0.3.20060721 - 20060721 snapshot - optgnome.patch * Mon Jul 24 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 1.0-0.2.beta1 - Requires: desktop-file-utils
Hi, Here a review. Please note that this is not an official review; because I'm not yet sponsored. MUST items: * rpmlint check -- rpmlint gives a warning on srpm. You'll need to fix it: W: xdg-utils mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. * Per Naming Guidelines, you should rename the spec to xdg-utils.spec * dist tag is not present. You must add it. * The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL. * This package includes License file LICENSE. * The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct fde4bf35fc34c58faa562bfb96103eb5. * This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386 architecture. * This package did not containd any ExcludeArch. * This package owns all directories that it creates. * This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. * Please use %{name} macro in Source0, and possibly in more places. * You must use make %{?smp_flags} instead of make in %build part. * This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * Doc files are present: ChangeLog LICENSE README TODO * Package is not relocatable. * The permissions of installed files look correct. * There are no .la libtool archives in the package. * Source URL is correct. * BuildRoot line meets guidelines. Also, I think you should clean up the spec -- it looks messy. Regards, Devrim
Hi again, Please ignore my comment about the name of the spec file. Sorry. Regards, Devim
> Also, I think you should clean up the spec -- it looks messy. How so? (It looks clean to me).
Here is a review. I have voluntarily not read the previous review. *MUST: rpmlint output on src.rpm is "W: xdg-utils mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs" There is one TAB in the "Name:" tag. *SHOULD: Naming and version are ok, but you should add the dist tag to the release number. *OK: spec file name *MUST: packaging guidelines -MUST: do not use %makeinstall, but DESTDIR instead (seems that the 20060721 tarball supports DESTDIR). *OK: license ok, license file in doc *OK: legible spec file. I do not understand either the remark of Devrim in comment #3 *OK: upstream sources have same md5sum: fde4bf35fc34c58faa562bfb96103eb5 *OK: noarch package *OK: no locales *OK: no shared libraries *OK: correct %files *OK: permissions *OK: %clean section *SHOULD: maybe add a %check section Summary: Rex, please correct the Name: tag, and the %install stuff, and this package will be accepted.
Sorry. I go too fast. Revert to FE-REVIEW.
Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/xdg-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/xdg-utils-1.0- 0.4.20060721.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jul 26 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 1.0-0.4.20060721 - specfile cosmetics, tabs -> spaces - %%makeinstall -> make install DESTDIR=... I'll add a %check section when the test suite actually works. (:
Well, this package seems a good candidate for Fedora Extras. FE-ACCEPT. Forget the %check section. I have eventually tried it, and it seems to be an interactive test suite.
Thanks, importing...