Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/mono-ndoc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/mono-ndoc-1.3.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: NDoc generates class library documentation from .NET assemblies and the XML documentation files generated by the C# compiler. NDoc uses pluggable documenters to generate documentation in several different formats, including the MSDN-style HTML Help format (.chm), the Visual Studio .NET Help format (HTML Help 2), and MSDN-online style web pages.
This one builds OK but needs a couple of fixes: mono-ndoc.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-ndoc.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib The usual mono complaints. mono-ndoc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package Will need disabling. mono-ndoc-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mono-ndoc-devel-1.3.1/sdk/ndoc_msdn_temp/tree.css mono-ndoc-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mono-ndoc-devel-1.3.1/sdk/ndoc_msdn_temp/tree.js mono-ndoc-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mono-ndoc-devel-1.3.1/sdk/ndoc_msdn_temp/tree.js mono-ndoc-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mono-ndoc-devel-1.3.1/sdk/ndoc_msdn_temp/MSDN.css I guess these aren't intended to be displayed, but we generally fix up html files so I don't really see a reason not to fix these up as well. Full review in a bit.
Points addressed: New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/mono-ndoc.spec New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/mono-ndoc-1.3.1-2.fc9.src.rpm
rpmlint output is down to: mono-ndoc.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-ndoc.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib both of which are OK. Everything looks good to me. * source files match upstream: f587a11ff2b726347028faee8e1db654d1544cbdc8d37be593f0560ec8b60256 ndoc-devel-v1.3.1.zip * 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. * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: mono-ndoc-1.3.1-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm mono(NDoc.Core) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Documenter.JavaDoc) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Documenter.Latex) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Documenter.LinearHtml) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Documenter.Msdn) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Documenter.Msdn2) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Documenter.Xml) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.ExtendedUI) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.Test) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.VisualStudio) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDocConsole) = 1.3.3023.0 mono-ndoc = 1.3.1-2.fc9 = mono(NDoc.Core) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(NDoc.ExtendedUI) = 1.3.3023.0 mono(System) = 1.0.5000.0 mono(System.Drawing) = 1.0.5000.0 mono(System.Windows.Forms) = 1.0.5000.0 mono(System.Xml) = 1.0.5000.0 mono(mscorlib) = 1.0.5000.0 mono-ndoc-devel-1.3.1-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm mono-ndoc-devel = 1.3.1-2.fc9 = mono-ndoc = 1.3.1-2.fc9 pkgconfig * %check is not present. As far as I can tell, tests are run at build time. * 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 all in the -devel package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mono-ndoc Short Description: Code Documentation Generator for .NET Owners: spot Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9 devel InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Thanks for the review, its built everywhere.