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=503300 Thomas Spura <spurath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |, | |spurath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |de --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura <spurath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-06 15:13:50 EDT --- This is a review, but I'm not yet a packager on my one. Just for learning by reviwing other requests ;-) MUST: rpmlint: ~/rpmbuild/SPECS$ rpmlint vim-c-support.spec ../SRPMS/vim-c-support-5.7-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/vim-c-support-5.7-1.fc11.noarch.rpm vim-c-support.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/c-support/codesnippets/calloc_int_matrix.c vim-c-support.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/c-support/codesnippets/calloc_double_matrix.c vim-c-support.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/c-support/codesnippets/main.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings This are codesnippets an no devel-file -> ok MUST: package name according to the Package Naming Guidelines ok MUST: spec file is %{name}.spec ok MUST: Fedora approved license GPLv2 ok MUST: %doc %{license} if license file provided not provided, ok MUST: %doc files not important for runtime ok MUST: spec file in American English ok MUST: spec file legible ok MUST: souces must match upstream source md5sum 5fe70bbf2bae6bf0ab9111c8726f0fba ok MUST: packages compiles succesfully ok MUST: build dependencies listed in BuildRequires ok MUST: locale handling with %find_lang no locales, ok MUST: shared libraries must call ldconfig in %post and %postun not needed, ok MUST: permissions properly set ok MUST: %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} ok MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. ok MUST: large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage doc is not large, ok MUST: header files must be in a -devel package codesnippets are no headers, ok MUST: libraries with ending .so must be in -devel package no libraries, ok MUST: -devel must Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} no -devel, ok MUST: static libraries must be in a -static package so libraries, ok MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. no pkgconfig, ok MUST: .la libtool archive are forbitten ok MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file and desktop-file-install in %install; no %{name}.desktop -> reason explained in %{name}.spec no gui, ok MUST: beginning of %install rm -rf %{buildroot} ok MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ok ############################### Current blocker: MUST: License field in the package spec file must match the actual license not said on %{URL} -> unsure MUST: owns each directory it creates does not own /usr/share/vim/vimfiles and folders down MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages currently not in final state MUST: don't list a file more than once in %files listening atm ok, but not yet final state… MUST: consistently using macros %post and %postun should use %{vimfiles} too ############################## SHOULD: package builds in mock. could not try, but builds in rpmbuild SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. For me it does *not* work correctly. The gui version with vim-X11 works perfectls, but as described on the website the '\foo' commands don't work. (in gui and non-gui mode) It seems vim does not load /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/ftplugin/c.vim correctly. Does it work for you? If don't please fix this. ;-) ############################# Currently TODO: * redo %files section * consistently use macros * get vim-c-support to work -- 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