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=704088 Theodore Lee <theo148@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |theo148@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Theodore Lee <theo148@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-15 08:40:16 EDT --- I'm not a sponsored packager yet, so I'll just be doing an informal review of this package. MUST Items ========== OK - rpmlint must be run on all rpms $ rpmlint gcal-3.6-1.fc15.src.rpm gcal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proleptic -> epileptic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gcal-3.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm gcal-debuginfo-3.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm gcal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proleptic -> epileptic gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gcal gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary txt2gcal gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tcal gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gcal2txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. After installation: $ rpmlint gcal gcal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proleptic -> epileptic gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gcal gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary txt2gcal gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tcal gcal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gcal2txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. OK - Package must meet naming guidelines OK - Spec file name must match base package name OK - Package must meet packaging guidelines OK - Package must meet licensing guidelines OK - License tag must match actual license OK - Any license files must be in %doc OK - Spec file must be in American English OK - Spec file must be legible OK - Sources must match upstream $ sha1sum gcal-3.6.tar.xz gcal-3.6-upstream.tar.xz de58da0a15b73e377661212d65b9f82446ae7f11 gcal-3.6.tar.xz de58da0a15b73e377661212d65b9f82446ae7f11 gcal-3.6-upstream.tar.xz OK - Package must build on at least one primary arch Builds on x86_64 with mock. N/A - Arches that the package doesn't build on must be excluded with a relevant bug OK - All necessary build dependencies must be in BuildRequires OK - Locales must be handled properly N/A - Binary rpms containing libraries must call ldconfig OK - Package must not bundle system libraries N/A - Relocatable packages must have rationalization. OK - Package must own all directories it creates OK - Package must not list a file more than once in %files OK - Files must have correct permissions OK - Macros must be consistent OK - Package must contain code or permissible content N/A - Large documentation files must be in a -doc subpackage OK - %doc files must not affect program operation N/A - Header files must be in a -devel subpackage N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package N/A - -devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - Package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items ============ N/A - If the package is missing license text in a separate file, the packager should query upstream for it N/A - Description and summary should contain translations if available OK - Package should build in mock OK - Package should build on all supported architectures Scratch build seems okay: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3072653 OK - Package should function as described. Basic testing of the gcal command doesn't seem to have turned up any issues. OK - Scriptlets should be sane N/A - Non-devel subpackages should require the base package with a full version N/A - pkgconfig files should be placed appropriately N/A - File dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin should require package instead ! - Binaries/scripts should have man pages Issues ====== The binaries in the package are missing man pages, although they have quite comprehensive info documentation. Perhaps upstream could be asked to convert some of the docs? $ rpmls gcal-3.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm [...] -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/gcal/CREDITS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/gcal/Makefile.in -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/gcal/README [...] It seems a bit odd that these files are installed under /usr/share - are they needed, or can they just be excluded? I don't think any of these issues are blocking though, so were I a sponsored packager, I would declare this package APPROVED. -- 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