Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde-0.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: A LightDM greeter for KDE.
proposal: Use alternatives to handle greeter config Spec: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/lightdm/lightdm-kde.spec Srpm: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/lightdm/lightdm-kde-0.1.1-3.fc16.src.rpm
pre review: - licence: in addition to GPLv3+: kcm/configwidgets/selectimagebutton.cpp: LGPL (v2.1 or later) kcm/configwidgets/selectimagebutton.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) - can't access source0, better use this url? http://download.kde.org/unstable/lightdm-kde/src/lightdm-kde-0.1.1.tar.bz2 - mark as config: %{_sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/org.kde.kcontrol.kcmlightdm.conf - missing doc: COPYING, NEWS - use %name macro at least in source0 - validate greeter/lightdm-kde-greeter.desktop (it's ok)? thanks :)
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde-0.1.1-3.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 11 2012 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.1.1-3 - %%doc COPYING NEWS - %%config dbus conf - License: GPLv3+ * only .desktop files that appear in menus (ie, those under /usr/share/applications/ need validation), which isn't the case here * no mandate in guidelines requiring use of %name in source urls
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lightdm/lightdm-kde-0.1.1-4.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 11 2012 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.1.1-4 - fix Source url (http vs https)
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/greg/projects/Review/819955/lightdm-kde-0.1.1.tar.bz2 : MD5SUM this package : a075680719c9aff179c0c1b67dfc9f5a MD5SUM upstream package : a075680719c9aff179c0c1b67dfc9f5a [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Approved Just remember to fix lightdm devel subpackages :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lightdm-kde Short Description: LightDM KDE Greeter Owners: rdieter cwickert Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
imported.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lightdm-kde New Branches: epel7 Owners: rdieter carandraug
Branch exists.