Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213600 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-02 17:54 EST ------- Not an official review since I am just a rookie. - rpmlint gives one warning on the src: tinyca2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. A quick glance makes me think that the indentation used in the %description and for the sed lines (in %setup) might be the culprit - the buildroot line does not respect the preferred value for FE (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). Since this is just a PREFERRED not a MUST, should not be a blocker - MUST: package is named according to the guidelines - MUST: spec file name matches the base package name - MUST: license field matches actual license - MUST: the program is licensed under GPL but upstream did not include the actual text of the license is the source, just the reference to it. I guess you should ping upstream to add the license to the provided tar files. - MUST: spec file is in American English - MUST: spec file is legible - MUST: source matches upstream, md5sum being a7f63806dbdc38a34ed58e42e79f4822 for both - MUST: builds fine in mock/i386. Since the content is actually just a perl script + some message (.po) files which are formatted during the build phase, I assume it would succesfully build on any platform; created rpm is noarch - MUST: %find_lang macro is correctly used to pick locales - MUST: no libraries are installed, so there is no need for calling ldconfig in %post/%postun - MUST: package is not relocatable - MUST: owns all directories (and files) that it creates - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing - MUST: %clean is correct - MUST: makes consistent use of macros - MUST: no forbidden code/content included - MUST: large documentation does not exist, so no need for a separate -doc - MUST: the content of %doc is a small CHANGES file, so runtime functionality is not affected - MUST: no header or static files, no pkgconfig(.pc), no library files with a suffix, no ibtool archives, so no need for -devel - MUST: IS a GUI application; correctly includes %{name}.desktop (provided by upstream) and properly installs it with desktop-file-install; someone more experienced please comment if the "--add-category=X-Fedora" is still required (according to yesterday's FESCO: === Packaging Committee Report === * Voting to stop using the X-Fedora category in the desktop file is currently underway via email.) - MUST: does not take ownership of foreign files/directories - SHOULD: includes available translations - SHOULD: as specified above, builds fine in mock - SHOULD: on a RHEL4 system the rpm installed fine but the program did not run, failing with: error: Failed dependencies: perl(Gtk2) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch perl(Gtk2::SimpleMenu) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch perl(Locale::gettext) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch On FC6 it detected the missing Requires, but failed to get installed even after installing perl-Gtk2 and gettext: error: Failed dependencies: perl(Locale::gettext) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch It seems that the correct Requires should be perl-gettext rather then gettext. The program runs successfully after installing perl-Gtk2 and perl-gettext. - SHOULD: no scriplets at all, so neither unsane scriptlets Bottom line - cosmetic fixes: make rpmlint happy by replacing multiple spaces with tab (non blocker) - make reviewers happy by using the recommended build root line (non blocker) - use a correct Requires line (perl-gettext instead of gettext) (BLOCKER) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review