Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 304861
Review Request: eclipse-demos - Eclipse screencasts
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:12:16 EST
Spec URL: http://overholt.ca/eclipse-demos.spec
SRPM URL: http://overholt.ca/eclipse-demos-0.0.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
Description: Eclipse demonstration screencasts
This is pretty much trivial. rpmlint says:
eclipse-demos.noarch: W: invalid-license Open Publication License
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, the License: tag should be
"Open Publication". This license is also only acceptable without the optional
clauses in the sixth section. Actually I can't tell if anything in the sixth
section of the license applies at all, because those options are supposed to be
used in the incorporation by reference, and there's nothing to attach such a
reference to unless they're in the oggs somehow. I'm going to assume not.
Also, you should %doc the license file.
The only other question I have is regarding the totem requirement. I can view
this without using totem (from a KDE system, say, or one with mplayer), and I
could just serve the files via the web or something. Frankly I'd just drop it.
* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license (but should use approved short form)
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
? final provides and requires; totem probably shouldn't be there.
eclipse-demos = 0.0.1-1.fc8
* %check is not present; a test suite isn't really applicable. I watched a
couple of the videos and they look OK to me.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Thanks for the review. I've updated the License field and dropped the totem
requirement. New spec and SRPM:
Looks great; rpmlint is quiet and the issues I had are fixed.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: eclipse-demos
Short Description: Eclipse screencasts
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Can we close this? It looks like the package has been built for F8 and pushed
to the repos.
Oops, sorry, forgot to close.