[Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X

[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=460974

--- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-02 06:25:24 EDT ---
Ok thanks.  Here is the review:

 +:ok, !:needs attention,  NA: not applicable

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output

xmobar.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> Minimalist,
minimalist, minimalism
xmobar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins,
plug-ins, plugging
xmobar.src: W: strange-permission xmobar-0.11.1.tar.gz 0640L
xmobar.src: W: strange-permission xmobar.spec 0640L
xmobar.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
xmobar.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> Minimalist,
minimalist, minimalism
xmobar.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins,
plug-ins, plugging
xmobar.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/xmobar
xmobar.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/xmonadpropwrite
xmobar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmonadpropwrite
xmobar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmobar
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Ok

[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release

766fe504909384628321fb7472fdb621  xmobar-0.11.1.tar.gz

[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2442474

[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[!] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.

It would be best to add a desktop file.

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Please also include the useful README file.

Basically all fine but since this is a GUI program I think it needs
a desktop file.  You could probably take the one we added for
xmonad as a starting point.

-- 
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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


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