[Bug 524707] Review Request: chronojump - A measurement, management and statistics sport testing tool

[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=524707





--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx>  2009-09-22 13:51:56 EDT ---
Looks good so far! There are several minor things to fix, and one major thing
-- the launcher script is broken on 64-bit archs -- the latter is a common
problem with our Mono apps, so I guess it's a good thing it's caught during
review anyway.

Fix them and I can approve this.

Koji F-12 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1698459


ReviewTemplate

MUST

OK rpmlint

$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/chronojump-0.8.10-1.fc11.src.rpm ./chronojump*
error checking signature of
/home/michel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/chronojump-0.8.10-1.fc11.src.rpm
chronojump.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/chronojump/libchronopic.so
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Internal use only, warning can be ignored


OK package name
OK spec file name
OK package guideline-compliant
OK license complies with guidelines
OK license field accurate
OK license file not deleted
OK spec in US English
OK spec legible
OK source matches upstream
OK builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: Koji
?  build dependencies complete
   over-complete: you can drop BR on mono-core since you already BR: mono-devel
OK locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale
FIX library -> ldconfig
   since your package does not install any library in the normal ld.so path
   and does not extend the path (see /etc/ld.so.conf*), running ldconfig is
   unnecessary (this also gives you the exception from the .so-in-devel rule)

FIX own all directories
  must depend on hicolor-icon-theme for the installed icon
OK no dupes in %files
OK permission
OK %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK macros used consistently
  not really about macros, but about scriplets. See the guideline about how to


OK Package contains code
?  large docs => -doc
   -doc should be in group "Documentation"

   Also, you can make -doc noarch, starting from RPM 4.6 (i.e. F-10 and above)
   and since Mono is not available on RHEL, you can just go ahead and declare
   the subpackage to be noarch without testing for the Fedora/RHEL version
first

e.g.
   %package doc
   ...
   BuildArch: noarch

OK doc not runtime dependent
NA if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig
NA if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel
OK desktop file uses desktop-file-install
OK clean buildroot before install
OK filenames UTF-8

SHOULD
OK package build in mock on all architectures
FIX package functioned as described
  the launcher script is hardcoded to look for the .exe under /usr/lib instead
  of %{_libdir}:
$ chronojump
Cannot open assembly '/usr/lib/chronojump/Chronojump.exe': No such file or
directory.

Unfortunately, a common problem in Mono apps, since Novell's openSUSE is also
multilib-capable (like Fedora) and thus they intentionally hard-code /usr/lib
because they consider Mono to be noarch, and we don't make that assumption :(

FIX scriplets are sane
  icon cache not updated; see
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
OK other subpackages should require versioned base
OK require package not files

-- 
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]