Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert <fed...@christoph-wickert.de> 2009-01-03 20:15:28 EDT --- REVIEW FOR 9050675dce622f3983571eb094ca60ec sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: ]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc11.* sbackup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 76) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. can be ignored, see comment # 4. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines. - Timestamp of Source0 does not match OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by MD5 0d754b72da3b5cadf6de203cdf7afe13 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK - MUST: The package contains code. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. FIX - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file that is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section, but there are some issues with the desktop files, see below. OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. OK - SHOULD: The scriptlets used are must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Issues: - Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - Desktop files: - paths are hardcoded - key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing character - Categories are IMO not correct. Suggestion: sbackup-restore = System;Utility;Filesystem;Archiving;GNOME;GTK; sbackup-conf = System;Settings;SystemSettings;GNOME;GTK; In case of doubt see http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html - add GenericNames for KDE compatibility. Use the window title Restore files/directories, Backup Properties - please add (at least German) Translations for the keys, e. g. GenericName[de]=Dateien/Verzeichnisse wiederherstellen - Requires: usermode-gtk for the password dialog - Use global pam config? #%PAM-1.0 auth include config-util account include config-util session include config-util - I suggest you include pam config as separate sources instead of creating them on the fly. - include an initscript for sbackupd? - What are the Exclude statements for? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
