[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

Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-07-19 22:55:49 EDT ---
- As a courtesy to people reading your spec files, please don't use macros in
the URL if they're not absolutely necessary.

- Patch0 is missing a description in the spec file. Please document what it
does. Has it been sent upstream?

- Where is Source1 from? Has it been sent upstream?

***

rpmlint output:
volumeicon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systray -> stray
volumeicon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stepsize -> step size,
step-size, stepsister
volumeicon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systray -> stray
volumeicon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stepsize -> step
size, step-size, stepsister
volumeicon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary volumeicon
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

These are OK.

***

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSWORK
- As pointed out by Veeti, you're mixing styles.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
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.
OK
- License is GPLv3.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
$ md5sum volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz 
a63e83b8a5d41dca38d077934bce9fcf  volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz
a63e83b8a5d41dca38d077934bce9fcf  ../SOURCES/volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
- You're missing a %defattr line, but it seems to be defaulted on current RPM
versions...
- Maybe add it, just in case? I don't have time now to investigate.

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

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- As pointed out earlier, README is inrelevant.

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 then library files
ending in .so 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. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A


Please address issues before import to git. This package has been


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


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