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=693425 --- Comment #44 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-26 09:54:41 EDT --- As for server, the source rpm is missing. Reviewing based on old source + updated spec file. MUST - rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms... + Should be run on 4 files, not 2; see server review. Also, please separate output from server and client. + Fix changelog version; see server. + obsolete-not-provided: Presuming that openerp is incompatible w tinyerp, this could be ignored. - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.... NOK + The name should be openerp-client.spec; see server review. - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. TBD + Some deps listed in setup.py are missing in spec file. Is this as intended? - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license...: OK - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: NOK + No overall copyright clause in README or separate copyright file, acceptable but "odd". + License: field is AGPLv3, README.txt says all files are GPL. + mydistutils.py is GPLv2+ + GUI (openerp.glade) talks about GPLv3 + msgfmt.py has a Tiny SPRL copyright, but is *very* similar to msgfmt.py as of python-tools, which has another author reference but no copyright info. Since the copyright is questionable, I suggest that the file is removed and build depends on python-tools instead. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines - Separate License file must be in %doc...: OK - The spec file must be written in American English: TBD + Being a Swede, I really don't know. Looks fine to me, though :) - The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source...TBD - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms...: TBD - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires...TBD + No source submitted + gettext build req missing; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Handling_Locale_Files - The spec file MUST handle locales properly...: OK - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries: NOK + contains bundled SpiffGtkWidgets - A package must own all directories that it creates. OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %file lists...: OK - Permissions on files must be set properly...: OK - Each package must consistently use macros : NOK + Defining macros prefixed w _, like _iconsdir, is bad practise, reserved for internal use. - The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application..: OK - Header files must be in a -devel package - Packages containing GUI applications must include a .desktop file...: OK - Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages...OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.: OK SHOULD: - Package built on koji/mock. TBD - Testing... No source submitted - Scriptlets should be sane...: NOK + Icons are not handled properly, use of _iconsdir, no icon cache mgmt, possibly odd icon location. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495412 and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache + Since postun requires desktop-file-utils, the test for .../update-desktop-database is not required. OTOH, it's wise to add a '|| : ' just in case these tools return an error code. OTHER REMARKS: - The for BIN in... loop could be be written in one line using 'sed -i'. - The copyright info in debian/copyright is outdated, SpiffGtkWidtgets is now AGPL, other updates. - The files debian/ and setup.* should be removed; they make no sense in a Fedora package. -- 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