Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/digikamimageplugins-doc.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-1.src.rpm Description: Documentation for digiKamimageplugins.
rpmlint says: E: digikamimageplugins-doc configure-without-libdir-spec W: digikamimageplugins-doc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs W: digikamimageplugins-doc patch-not-applied Patch1: digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-noarch.patch + Build fine on x86_64 + BuildRoot is correct + Source URL is correct + License used is GFDL + License file README is included + MD5 sum on tarball match upstream tarball 9735437a0f385e28c2179ea25965d78f digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-r1.tar.bz2
This is a bit of an odd package, since it's noarch but has a configure script. It builds fine, though. rpmlint says: E: digikamimageplugins-doc configure-without-libdir-spec OK, it's complaining about the string "./configure" in a comment. Jeez. W: digikamimageplugins-doc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 2) Completely bogus. W: digikamimageplugins-doc patch-not-applied Patch1: digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-noarch.patch Indeed, the patch is not applied. I suppose you should choose which method you want to use to trick configure into not blowing up on a noarch build and elide the rest. W: digikamimageplugins-doc dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt_BR/digikamimageplugins/common ../common A bunch of these, all of which are normal for KDE applications. I can't run the full review because I can't get the upstream source. In fact, I can't even find a link to it on the upstream web site. I can't tell if the link in the spec is invalid or if it's just sourcefudge being useless as usual. Did you intend to leave out the dist tag? ? source files match upstream. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. ? latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has bogus or ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: digikamimageplugins-doc = 0.8.2-1 = digikamimageplugins = 0.8.2 * %check is not present; it's kind of tough to test documentation. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * documentation is exempted from the "code, not content" rule.
> I can't run the full review because I can't get the upstream source. Grr... this *used* to work, http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-r1.tar.bz2 but now, it appears, one must prepend a mirror, so use (something like): http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-r1.tar.bz2
Nevermind, looks like I biffed the Source tag altogether... Lemme go find one that actually works...
Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/digikamimageplugins-doc.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-2.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Oct 02 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 0.8.2-2 - Release: use %%{?dist} - Source: include URL that actually works
OK, this one is much better. The source matches: 9735437a0f385e28c2179ea25965d78f digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-r1.tar.bz2 and the dist tag is there. APPROVED
Importing, thanks for the review.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: digikamimageplugins-doc Updated Fedora Owners: mgarski
Is the intention to add a comaintainer or a change of package ownership? Please clarify and set fedora-cvs to '?' again.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: digikamimageplugins-doc Updated Fedora Cc: mgarski +comaintainer.