[Bug 510700] Review Request: unetbootin - Create bootable Live USB drives for a variety of Linux distributions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=510700


Fabian Affolter <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  2009-07-10 07:25:14 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Package: 

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint unetbootin-0-1.356bzr.fc11.src.rpm 
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
     [fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint unetbootin*
     2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     master   : %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
     spec file: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
     License type: GPLv2+
 [-] 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] Spec file is legible and written in American English
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
     Upstream source: 4a8e72ab32afbb8564519a211c798f71
     Build source:    4a8e72ab32afbb8564519a211c798f71
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [-] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales
 [x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [-] Included tests passed successfully 
 [x] Package consistently uses macros
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content
 [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
 [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
 [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
 [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
 [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)

 [x] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI
application [1]
 [x] Follows desktop entry spec
 [x] Valid .desktop Name
 [x] Valid .desktop GenericName
 [x] Valid .desktop Categories
 [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
 [x] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
 [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [x] Latest version is packaged
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     Tested:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1465326
 [?] Package functions as described [2]
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
 [-] File based requires are sane
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

[1] Is there a reason why you aren't using the .desktop file from the source
tarball?

[2] If you want to start the application from the menu, there is a warning that
it must be run with root permissions.  I think that for end users this will be
a bit annoying. 
After the start from the command line as root, a box shows up and tell me that
7zip was not found.
The complete message:
'7z not found. This is required for either install mode.
Install the "p7zip-full" package or your distribution's equivalent.'

But it's available.
[root@laptop09 i586]# rpm -qa p7zip
p7zip-4.65-1.fc11.i586

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]