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=765802 --- Comment #1 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-18 18:37:49 EST --- Sorry for the delay, here is now the full review: * rpmlint: OK (one minor non-blocking TODO) rpmlint RPMS/noarch/indimpc-0-0.20111209.git.fc16.noarch.rpm SRPMS/indimpc-0-0.20111209.git.fc16.src.rpm SPECS/indimpc.spec indimpc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds indimpc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd indimpc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keybinder -> key binder, key-binder, bindery indimpc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indimpc indimpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds indimpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd indimpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keybinder -> key binder, key-binder, bindery indimpc.src: W: strange-permission fmoralesc-indimpc-2313a1a.tar.gz 0640L indimpc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fmoralesc-indimpc-2313a1a.tar.gz SPECS/indimpc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fmoralesc-indimpc-2313a1a.tar.gz 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. These warnings are false-positives: - spelling errors for words not found in the dictionary - invalid Source0 URL: normal for VCS checkouts - no manual: not provided by upstream TODO: I don't think that the source tarball needs to be world-readable, but it would be probably better to change its permission to 644 to avoid the rpmlint warning. * naming: OK - name does matches upstream - spec file name matches package name * version/release tags: OK - all rules for snapshot builds correctly applied * License: OK - license file packaged: OK - BSD acceptable * specfile in American English and legible: OK * %description: OK * Sources: TODO - the source matches upstream's git HEAD - although http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control is not very specific whether it is required, I strongly recommend to add the commands used to reproduce the exact tarball (should include git commit hash) * Python specific defines: OK (with non-blocking TODO) - unless you plan to support RHEL 5 or older it is not necessary to define python_sitelib / _sitearch anymore: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros * Compilation: OK - package does build in koji * debuginfo sub-package: n/a * BuildRequires: OK * Requires: TODO - since indimpc starts ncmpc++ (in a gnome-terminal) per default, I suggest adding gnome-terminal and ncmpcpp as Requires - since indimpc's .desktop file uses GNOME's stock icon "gnome-multimedia" please add gnome-icon-theme-legacy as additional Requires * %install section: OK (non-blocking TODO) - rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not necessary in any recent Fedora releases * Locales handling: OK (n/a) * shared/static libs, pkgconfig/header/*.la files: OK (n/a) * packages must own all directories: OK * files not listed twice: OK * permissions of files: OK * %clean section: OK (n/a) * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (no content) * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * GUI application needs %{name}.desktop: OK * no directories owned which are already owned by other packages: OK * all file names UTF8: OK * functional test: OK - indimpc works fine in gnome-shell * Scriptlets: OK (n/a) Summary: - Package looks good! - two blocking issues: * document how exactly the tarball can be reproduced * add missing Requires -- 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