[Bug 722914] Review Request: volumeicon - Lightweight volume control for the system tray

[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=722914

Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |veeti.paananen@xxxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #1 from Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-19 11:37:35 EDT ---
Hi! Here's an informal review:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review. OK

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. NEEDSWORK:

- README is irrelevant since it only contains generic build instructions
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation)

- There is a %clean section even though the package isn't for EPEL
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean)

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NOT SURE:

- licensecheck gives GPLv3, not GPLv3+.

MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc. OK

MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. NEEDSWORK:

- I don't think that the S in "Volume Slider" needs to be capitalized.

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK:

[veeti@veeti-pc tmp]$ md5sum volumeicon*
a63e83b8a5d41dca38d077934bce9fcf  volumeicon-srpm.tar.gz
a63e83b8a5d41dca38d077934bce9fcf  volumeicon-upstream.tar.gz

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. OK

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. OK

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A

MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A

MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK

MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. N/A

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. OK

MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations). OK

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. OK

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. NEEDSWORK:

- Line 45 uses variable-style build root which is mixing styles
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS)

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK

MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. OK

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A

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. N/A

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}. N/A

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built. N/A

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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
NOT SURE:

- Wouldn't it make sense to place another desktop file in the actual menu for
this instead of just having an autostart entry?

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. OK

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK

------------

Some issues:

- README is irrelevant since it only contains generic build instructions
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation)

- There is a %clean section even though the package isn't for EPEL
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean)

- I don't think that the S in "Volume Slider" needs to be capitalized.

- licensecheck gives GPLv3, not GPLv3+. (?)

- Line 45 uses variable-style build root which is mixing styles
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS)

- Wouldn't it make sense to place another desktop file in the actual menu for
this instead of just having an autostart entry? (?)

-- 
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]