[Bug 2421] booh - Static web-album generator

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2421

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
  namespace||free
 Resolution|--- |EXPIRED

--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
Is this review still relevant ?
Is there a way to make this package ffmpeg/mplayer requirement optional ?
Please re-open if still relevant.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[Bug 2421] booh - Static web-album generator

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2421

Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||alexisis-pristontale@hotmai
   ||l.com

--- Comment #1 from Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com 
2012-08-16 01:45:06 CEST ---
Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 C/C++ 
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
 present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in non-devel package (fix or
 explain):booh-0.9.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm :
 /usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/booh/libadds.so
 (libadds is a ruby binding don't need to be versionned)

 Generic 
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
 more warning flags is applied in additions than fedora flags, it's don't
change the beavor of resulting library.
[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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
 there is such a file.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
 see bottom comments.
[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
[-]: 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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 UNKNOWN, *No copyright* UNKNOWN, *No copyright* GENERATED FILE,
 GENERATED FILE For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
 /home/alexises/booh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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.
 Note: Installation errors (see attachment)

[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid 

[Bug 2421] booh - Static web-album generator

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2421

Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |alexisis-pristontale@hotmai
   |mfusion.org |l.com

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.