Bug 304861 - Review Request: eclipse-demos - Eclipse screencasts
Review Request: eclipse-demos - Eclipse screencasts
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jason Tibbitts
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-09-25 08:08 EDT by Andrew Overholt
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:12 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-10-09 18:03:11 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tibbs: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Andrew Overholt 2007-09-25 08:08:45 EDT
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
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2007-09-25 15:57:18 EDT
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
?  totem
* %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.
Comment 2 Andrew Overholt 2007-09-25 16:17:17 EDT
Thanks for the review.  I've updated the License field and dropped the totem
requirement.  New spec and SRPM:

Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2007-09-25 17:06:39 EDT
Looks great; rpmlint is quiet and the issues I had are fixed.

Comment 4 Andrew Overholt 2007-09-25 17:13:42 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: eclipse-demos
Short Description: Eclipse screencasts
Owners: overholt@redhat.com,jjohnstn@redhat.com
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2007-09-25 19:17:10 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2007-10-09 17:51:15 EDT
Can we close this?  It looks like the package has been built for F8 and pushed
to the repos.
Comment 7 Andrew Overholt 2007-10-09 18:03:11 EDT
Oops, sorry, forgot to close.

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