Bug 226434 - Merge Review: star
Summary: Merge Review: star
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerry James
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 21:01 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-08-27 18:57 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: star-1.5-7.fc12
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-08-27 18:57:51 UTC
Type: ---
loganjerry: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 21:01:51 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: star

Initial Owner: pvrabec@redhat.com

Comment 1 Jerry James 2009-08-26 16:06:02 UTC
It's about time someone reviewed this, isn't it?  Rpmlint shows some things that need to be fixed.

star.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/star-1.5/AN-1.5
star.spec:84: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
star.spec:201: W: macro-in-%changelog files
star.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 36, tab: line 51)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings.

The first warning is triggered because of some ISO8859-1 characters in the file.  Please convert that file to UTF-8.

The second warning is harmless.

To fix the third warning, change "%files" to "%%files" in the changelog entry of Fri Aug 26 2005.

Please also fix the fourth warning by using either spaces or tabs, but not both.

MUST items:
XX: rpmlint output (see above)
OK: package named according to package naming guidelines
OK: spec file name matches package name
XX: package meets packaging guidelines

First, there are no comments on the patches, as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

Second, the BuildRoot does not contain %{release}, as required by

OK: package has a Fedora-approved license
OK: license field matches actual license
OK: license file in %doc
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file is legible
OK: source matches upstream source (checked with md5sum)
OK: package builds successfully on at least one primary arch
NA: appropriate use of ExcludeARch
OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: proper locale handling
NA: call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK: no relocatable packages
OK: package owns all directories it creates
OK: no duplicate listings in %files
OK: permissions on files are set correctly
OK: appropriate %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
NA: large documentation in -doc
OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc
NA: header files in -devel
NA: static libraries in -static
NA: Requires pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel requires base package
OK: no libtool archives
NA: desktop file for GUI apps
OK: do not own files/dirs owned by other packages
OK: clean at top of %install
OK: all filenames are UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: ask upstream to include a license file
NA: include translated description and summary fields
OK: package builds in mock
OK: package builds and compiles on all supported arches
OK: package functions as described (minimal testing only)
OK: sane scriptlets
NA: subpackages require the base package
NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

Finally, would it be helpful to include READMEs/README.linux in %doc?

Comment 2 Ondrej Vasik 2009-08-27 08:07:30 UTC
Thanks for taking this merge review.

-Relevant rpmlint warnings fixed (rm .%{_prefix}/lib kept)

-Comments on patches added - although it is SHOULD and not MUST item to have commented patches, it could be useful and star has not so many patches - so no problem with this...

-Buildroot from spec file is no longer used by newer rpm, so this is harmless too - anyway, fixed for sanity...

Built as star-1.5-7.fc12.

Comment 3 Jerry James 2009-08-27 14:36:49 UTC
Looks good.  APPROVED.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.