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=722843 --- Comment #5 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-11 10:18:20 EDT --- One minor remark: The provided spec file is does not match the spec file in the src.rpm, this makes it hard to distinguish which one is the newest: please always keep them in sync. ;-) Here now the complete review: * rpmlint: TODO rpmlint RPMS/i686/synergy-* SRPMS/synergy-1.3.7-2.fc15.src.rpm SPECS/synergy.spec synergy.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided synergy-plus -> according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages the new package should have a "Provides" for the replaced package synergy.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/synergy-1.3.7/COPYING -> you may report this to upstream, but it won't block the review synergy.src: W: strange-permission synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz 0444L -> false positive synergy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found -> false positive, the URL is correct (tested with "spectool -g synergy.spec"), the root cause is a wrong HTTP answer from googlecode.com web server which is a long outstanding bug ;-) SPECS/synergy.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found -> same false positive as above 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. * naming: OK - spec file name matches package name * sources: OK - Source tag ok - spectool -g works * License: OK - GPLv2 is a Fedora approved License - License in spec file matches the actual license (as mentioned in the source files) - License file packaged * spec file written in American English and legible: OK * buildroot: TODO - %clean not necessary anymore - rm -rf in %install not necessary anymore - specification of BuildRoot is not necessary anymore - see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag * compilation: OK - builds fine in koji: rawhide * BuildRequires: OK * Requires: OK (n/a) * bundled copies of system libraries: OK (n/a) * locales handling: OK (n/a) * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a) * package owns all directories that it creates: OK * %files section: OK * no files listed twice in %files: OK * file permissions: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (no content) * main package should not contain development related parts: OK (n/a) * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a) * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) * *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a) * devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: (n/a) * packages must not contain *.la files: OK (n/a) * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK * all filenames UTF-8: OK * debuginfo sub-package: OK - package contains source - debugging works * functional test: OK Summary: The packages is in a very good shape, there are only the 2 minor items: - to be in accordance with the guidelines, let the package provide synergy-plus - although the buildroot issue would not really block the review, please fix this as well to have a nice and clean spec file -- 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